Strategic Management of Google - Essay Example

STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT IN ACTION STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT PROCESSES Patch Task A Concept Tools Definition Reference Strategic leadership, vision and command Leadership that provides a roadmap to the success of an organization (Moore, 2009). Strategic planning Process of allocating resources of organization to achieve its goals (Singh et al, 2008). Externally imposed strategy Strategies implemented by external stakeholders (Jackson et al., 2003). Logical instrumentalism Management concept that suggests strategies are not a one-off process. They should be implemented in small bits continuously. (Moore and Manring, 2009). Political process The process of devising laws that govern the public (Moore and Manring, 2009). Prior decisions Decisions that were made previously (Jackson and Erhardt, 2003). Organisational system The structure of an organization that outlines roles (Peng and Nunes, 2007). Multiple process Many processes taking place simultaneously (Porter, 2008). Different context Taking place in different settings (Moore and Manring, 2009). Managing intended and emergent strategy Managing an intended strategy means planning for the strategy that an organization wishes to undertake. An emergent strategy implies the unexpected strategies that emerge in the business environment. (Moore and Manring, 2009). Continuity Consistent application of processes (Moore and Manring, 2009). Task B SWOT analysis Strengths Strengths Unique business model Encouraging work environment Favourable management structure Brand name Technological innovation Diversified products and services Competitive salary packages Free meals, swimming pool and messages Competent staff Weaknesses Disorganised organization Introduction of half-finished products Lack of information control on products Lack of advertising Rigid organization Opportunities Increased internet usage E-Commerce has opened opportunities for Online Payment methods Online advertising Social Networks and Mobile Phone Operating System Threats Stiff competition from Yahoo Lawsuits Censorship in the Chinese market Cyber crime e.g. Breach into Gmail system Strategic issues especially after making acquisitions Task C Google is an outstanding brand. Other brands such as Yahoo, the company has successfully managed to take the mantle away. The organization has become the most common search engines among Internet users. Behind Google’s success lies a number of strategies and management decisions that have seen the company reap benefits in the ever-growing internet market. In addition, Google applies one of the most distinct management structures in the whole world. The organization uses a flexible management structure in contrast to other blue chip companies that have a bureaucratic management structure where responsibilities are well delineated. The successful implementation of the structure has made Google become a case study for other companies that once dominated the technology industry such as IBM and General Electric (Peng et al, 2007). The Silicon Valley-based Information Technology uses the laissez-faire management structure. The laissez-faire management style gives employees freedom to undertake their tasks without severe control from the management. Employees are given an opportunity to manage themselves without reporting to their seniors as is the case for many well-established organizations. Such working environment encourages employees to implement their ideas and apply their skills and talents in coming up with creative products and services (Porter, 2008). In Google, the management is less structured compared to other blue chip companies. With the less structuring, it is easier to control the workflow and the quality of work being undertaken. Interestingly, the ratio of employees to managers is 1:20.The ratio is less compared to other well-established companies. The fewer ratios allow engineers of the company to work with manageable teams. With a small and manageable team, work efficiency is enhanced something that leads to quality work (Taylor et al., 2008). Google uses a very competitive hiring process that only attracts to notch candidates in various fields. For instance, the company only employs engineers from reputable institutions. In addition, the engineers must have attained remarkable achievements in the education. Furthermore, the engineers are taken through a vigorous interview process as to identify the best-suited candidates. The competitive hiring process has enabled the company attract the best talents in the technology industry. Also, the employees are given attractive salary packages in a bid to retain them. The strategy is also useful in ensuring that Google does not lose its talented workforce to competitors (Mi Dahlgaard-Park, 2007). Google employees enjoy a conducive working environment. The management of the organization allows engineers to spend much of their time on their personal projects. The strategy has been helpful for the group in coming up with new products and services that satisfy the customers of the organization. Moreover, employees of the organization enjoy access to a variety of services within the premises of the company. For instance, they enjoy free meals, swimming sessions, and messages. Such incentives have succeeded in luring potential employees yearn to work in the outstanding organization (Landrum, 2000). The internet has created numerous opportunities for bloggers, advertisers, shipping companies, software developers and online payments systems among other forms of business that have propped up on the platform. The management of Google has been proactive enough to tap into the opportunities that remain untapped in the industry. Also, the company acquired YouTube, an online video sharing site. The strategic move paid a few years later when the site became famous to internet users. Interestingly, the site is currently being used to advertise products. Organizations develop advertisements that are on the site. In order for them to be given permission to upload their advertisements, they have to pay a fortune. The advertisement segment has been one of the revenue streams for the business entity. In addition, to advertisements, Google offers other products and services that have been quite phenomenal to the users. They provide online payment services, social media, radio and mobile phone services that have been instrumental to the success of the organization (Mi Dahlgaard-Park, 2007). Although Google controls a significant market power in the Internet market, it still faces similar challenges like other organizations. The culture of producing half-finished products can be catastrophic to the business. Competitors are constantly monitoring new product developments from industry leaders. Competitors may imitate the half-finished products and come with a better brand. Consequently, Google could end up losing a lot of resource and potential revenues to copycats (Moore and Manring, 2009). On the other hand, Google faces a number of threats especial on legal issues. The company has been sued many times. The legal suits could have negative implications for the brand image of the organization. Furthermore, a lot of questions are being asked about the security of Gmail servers. There have been fears that the system is not well secured making account holders vulnerable to cyber crimes. Also, communication regulations in some countries such as China pose a threat to the sustainability of Google in some markets especially in the Asian market (Landrum, 2000). Reflective Commentary Google is a classical case study of an organization that has successfully implemented its strategic plans that have paid off. Page and Brin, who were the founders of the organization, developed a product that has become a phenomenal among internet users. The decision by the founders to share power equally with the new manager was a pure indication that they valued their employees. An organization can only become successful when power is, and responsibility shared equally. Although, conflicts are bound to emerge out of sharing power, it is imperative for the management to outline the powers of each of the managers to avoid conflicts (Moore and Manring, 2009). Employees are the most valuable assets of any organization. Human resource managers must maintain a competitive hiring process. Recruitment managers cannot afford to make mistakes as it will translate to the general performance of the organization. They should not hire employees based on their relationship, race or social status rather on the level of competence and professionalism they demonstrate. In addition, the employees should be given an opportunity to their talent since it could lead to innovation of better goods and services (Moore and Manring, 2009). Patch 2 Task A Concept / Tools Definition Reference Strategy Game plans devised to counter competition (Kaplan, 2005). system Operations of employees and work processes (Kaplan, 2005). skills Employee’s competence (Kaplan, 2005). Staff Workers and their abilities (Kaplan, 2005). Style Leadership approach used (Kaplan, 2005). Super ordinate goals Core values of an organization (Kaplan, 2005). Task B Concept / Tools Responsible for Organizational failure Reference Strategy Tom Ridge (Kaplan, 2005). system Michael Chertoff (Kaplan, 2005). skills Michael Chertoff (Kaplan, 2005). Staff Tom Ridge (Kaplan, 2005). Style Michael Chertoff (Kaplan, 2005). Super ordinate goals Tom Ridge (Kaplan, 2005). Task C Several gross mistakes were made during the Hurricane Katrina that claimed innocent lives. Although prior warnings had been given to the residents, the conflicts between the newly Homeland Security and the Federal Emergency Management Agency downplayed efforts to evacuate the citizens. The Homeland Security was constituted as a measure to curb the increased terrorism after the September 11 attacks. Following the formation of the Homeland Security, some of the government agencies were merged whereas others were disbanded. The Federal Emergency Management Agency that was mandated to respond to such natural calamities had powers regulated significantly. Furthermore, the financial allocation that the body received was also reduced something that led the body to be less influential in responding to disasters. The reconstitution of the body led to conflicts as responsibilities became centralised making it difficult for FEMA to discharge its duties. Whereas the FEMA had foreseen the threats of Hurricane Katrina, the Homeland Security frustrated its efforts to prepare for the evacuation process (Coyle, 2004). Several people were responsible for the organizational failures surrounding the response to Hurricane Katrina. Although Tom Ridge had a wealthy experience in matters relating to security, he overlooked the needy to have a distinct body to deal with the issue of natural calamities. It was obvious given his experience in war; he had little experience dealing with natural disasters (Denis et al, 2001). The McKinsey 7-s framework is a model that proposes all the departments of an organization to work in unison towards a common goal. Although the Homeland Security had been merged in a move aimed at improving service delivery in responding to emergencies, the objective was not achieved. Instead, a supremacy battle emerged between FEMA and the Homeland Security. Merging of the 22 bodies should have improved the performance of the Homeland Security that could have helped FEMA prepare adequately for the rescue mission during the Hurricane Katrina (Whittington, 2002).Furthermore, the merging made it difficult for FEMA to discharge its responsibilities despite being aware of the disaster that was about to happen. The McKinsey model could have been used in to evaluate the possible effects of the change in management structure. The issues could have been resolved so as to avoid potential conflicts between those mandated to head each of the departments that had been merged. In addition, Tom Ridge failed to organize the units in the newly composed Homeland Security so that each could discharge its mandate without any conflicts. Managing 180,000 employees is a daunting task. Ridge made a serious mistake by proposing for the reorganization because the roles of most department were overlapped making it impossible for each to work on its core responsibilities. In addition, all the attention was shifted to control terrorism activities with little importance given to disaster management. The decision to allocate insufficient financial resources to FEMA also undermined the leaders of the agency (Jackson et al, 2006). Michael Chertoff should also be held responsible for failing to protect the loss of lives despite being given prior notice by FEMA. In an unprecedented move, the former judge destabilised operations at the institution by making withdrawing the funds that were allocated to the body in equipping it for disaster management. In addition, the action to deny agency resources was a matter of unprofessionalism. Despite FEMA giving early warnings especial on a Saturday before the Hurricane swept across the city, Chertoff seemed too insensitive that the people were about to undergo. He spent his time on immigration matters, an issue that was of less priority. To add salt to an injury, he also failed to debrief the president a few days before the Hurricane came calling. The action demonstrates that he was utterly incompetent and should have been held responsible for the slow reaction. Moreover, it was a case of professional negligence an issue that should have been brought before a court of law. On the other hand, Michael Brown and his team should have been given the credit for the lives of thousand people (Singh et al, 2008). Although the agency had been allocated inadequate resources, Brown exercised the highest level of professionalism that saw him and his team evacuate more than 400,000 people. Ironically, Brown was later on criticised for his response that was as inadequate by his critics. The move was not right given Brown had done his best to control the situation amid the agency being ran with insufficient resources. Cher off was the one supposed to resign given that he done a lot of mistakes deliberately. Furthermore, he frustrated efforts by the head of FEMA to prepare adequately to handle the unfortunate situation by cutting financial support and undermining the head of the agency. Mr. Brown acted in an unprofessional because, as a leader, he was supposed to ensure there was timely and proper coordination in the evaluation process (Griffin and Moors, 2004). Reflective Commentary When disasters strike, it is expected that people who have been with the responsibility of saving lives respond proactively. However, one of the most common stories that emanates from rescue missions is the lack of proper coordination between the various teams involved. If the Homeland Security could have given FEMA an opportunity to present its case to the then US president, the story would have been different. However, due internal conflicts the case was different (Johnson et al, 2011). When an organisation restructures, a lot of confusion is usually experienced. Furthermore, when departments of the organization are, it becomes complicated to establish the origin of power and responsibilities. Although the decision to merge some the units in response to the September 11 attacks was noble, it had severe consequences that were by the pioneers of the Homeland Security. While giving the recommendation for the 22 departments to be merged, Tom Ridge overlooked the proposals of other agencies. Most of the departments were used to running their activities autonomously hence the decision to centralize them was a move to weaken them from carrying out their core business mandate. Instead, Ridge should have appointed a transition team that could have addressed some of the challenges that could have arisen out of the change (Whittington et al, 2006). Patch 3 Task A Concept/Tools Definition References Organizational change Adoption of new changes within an organization (Whittington, 2002). Cost reduction Reducing the expenses incurred in production processes (Landrum et al, 2000). Operational excellence Reduction of wastages (Griffin and Moors, 2004). Score cards Tool used to evaluate employee performance (Kaplan, 2005). Task B Concept/Tools Change style Effectiveness, Strengths and Weaknesses References Organizational change Cultural changes Enhanced organizational performance. Output level is likely to increase. (Whittington, 2002). Cost reduction Cost changes Reduced cost of operation. Leads to efficient production processes. Quality may be compromised. (Landrum et al., 2000). Operational excellence Process changes Smooth management of an organization. Leads to optimum utilization of resources. Increased expenditure on better equipment and technology. (Griffin and Moors, 2004). Score cards Process changes Brings accountability and enhances quality work. Faces resistance from employees. (Kaplan, 2005). TASK C John Howie and Craig Lockhart can be considered to be management gurus. The two were once Babcock Marine Managing Directors brought significant management changes in Feline. The organization was in a desperate need to significantly the cost incurred. As part of its strategy to induce changes at the naval base, the management of the company decided outsource the services of Management Consultant Company that was under the leadership of John Howie and later on Craig Lockhart. The two managing had a Midas touch changing operations at the military camp (Kaplan, 2005). The first step that Howie took was making cost reduction at the Navy Base to be his business. He was to provide measures that could help the organization cut on its cost. If the measures were effective, his group was entitled to profits. The agreement was one of the driving forces that made Howie and his team work practically (Kaplan, 2005). In addition, Howie found a significant discrepancy in terms of how the management treated some of the civilians were working for the Navy. The management valued its assets more than promoting the Navy in its activities, something that was a gross mistake. The Navy lacked motivation for the civilians to discharge their duties accordingly. Furthermore, most of the appointees who were given tasks on the base were not keen enough to embrace cost cutting measure given that they enjoyed sufficient financial resources that were properly utilised (Flamholtz and Randle, 2008). Consequently, Howie gave a proposal for those involved to ensure they spent less costs in their department without compromising the quality of service in the workplace (Hodgkinson et al, 2006). The managing director also suggested that political interference tended to slow down decision-making process at the Navy. The interference caused delays in making meaningful management changes as most of the politicians were found of the status quo. Hence, they were unwilling to accept any changes in the Navy. Political interference was a major impediment to the independence of the Navy. He proposed that it was also important for the Navy to tolerate political views since they brought about accountability at the Navy (Kodama, 2007). The successful change was as a result of restructuring the management at the navy base. Initially, there was a lot of bureaucracy at the Navy. With a lot of bureaucracies, the decision-making process was most likely to be slowed down. Radical changes were made with the recruitment process carried a fresh (Flamholtz and Randle, 2008). The changes were aimed at ensuring that there was a swift decision-making process that enabled the management of the Navy takes timely decisions. However, Howie suggested that while restructuring an organization, changes should be introduced in bits. Imposing radical changes at once might not be sufficient; neither may it attain the desired goals. Changes have to be made in steps so that they can work (Kaplan, 2005). On the other hand, Lockhart introduced the performance scorecards. Performance scorecards are used to evaluate/assess the performance of an employee on a regular basis. Consequently, employees who do not perform as required are fired from an organization for being a liability. The introduction of performance balance scorecards ensured that productivity levels had been enhanced since employees were accountable to their output levels (Hopkins et al, 2008). The change program at the Navy was very useful. In a span of one year, the Navy had managed to save £14 million that had surpassed the £3 million target. In the second year, £16 million was collected. In the long run, more than £100 had been obtained. The achievement was a significant milestone since costs had been reduced significantly with a margin of 20% (Flamholtz and Randle, 2008).In addition; the organization could save up to £280 in two years time. The figure represents a 39% reduction in cost. In addition to the reduction of cost, communication in the navy was improved, employees gained a positive attitude and response was also enhanced. Ultimately, the cost had been reduced but other improvements were also reported (Kaplan, 2005). The Navy was experiencing high operational cost something that necessitated for solution to be identified. The decision to outsource for an external institution to provide strategies that could help in cost reduction was imperative. Although Babcock Marine had little experience in naval affairs, they had a noble team that understood how to structure the management so as to achieve significant changes (Flamholtz and Randle, 2008). The institution was able to provide meaningful changes that led to the reduction of costs. There was a lot of wastages and accountability also lacked. The leadership that had been mandated to discharge duties at the base was in a deep sleep. However, with the change of administration, the head of the unit discovered the issue and embarked on cost-cutting steps (Heery et al, 2000). Reflective Commentary The primary objective of most business entities is to maximise on profits. Profit maximisation can only be if an organization manages to minimize costs. Although, the Navy is not a profit making institution, it must ensure that costs incurred are significantly. There has been a universal tendency for most government agencies to disregard cost reduction measures since they enjoy the protection of the government. Consequently, a lot of wastages are typically reported in many state institutions due to lack of accountability and political goodwill (Bailey et al., 2000). It is the responsibility of the top leadership of every organization to ensure that resources are utilised sparingly without compromising on to achieve the desired goals. Howie understood the concept and identified areas that had leakages within the Navy base. He was able to control the problem that had gotten out of hand. The management is mandated to formulate strategies that could enable the organization is a cost leader. Therefore, the strategic plans of an organization should provide the control with the approaches that can be applied to reduce cost. It is also important to have performance scorecard to measure performance of employees. The cards can be used to pinpoint employees who are less productive (Avolio and Yammarino, 2013). Reference List Avolio, B. J., and Yammarino, F. J. (Eds.). (2013). Transformational and Charismatic Bailey, A., Johnson, G., and Daniels, K. (2000). Validation of a multi‐dimensional measure Cases. Harlow: Financial Times Prentice Hall. Coyle, D. (2004). Organising for success. Demos Collection, 167-176. Denis, J. L., Lamothe, L., and Langley, A. (2001). The dynamics of collective leadership and strategic change in pluralistic organizations. Academy of Management journal, 44(4), 809-837. Flamholtz, E.and Randle, Y., (2008).Leading the Strategic Change: Bridging Theory and Practice. Cambridge University Press. Focusing contexts for information systems research. In 6th European conference on research methodology for business and management studies, Lisbon, Portugal (pp.229-236). Griffin, G., and Moors, R. (2004). The fall and rise of organising in a blue-collar union. Journal of Industrial Relations, 46(1), 39-52. Heery, E., Simms, M., Delbridge, R., Salmon, J., and Simpson, D. (2000). The TUC’s Hodgkinson, G. P., Whittington, R., Johnson, G., and Schwarz, M. (2006). The role of strategy workshops in strategy development processes: Formality, communication, co-ordination and inclusion. Long Range Planning, 39(5), 479-496. Hopkins, M. M., ONeil, D. A., Passarelli, A., and Bilimoria, D. (2008). Womens leadership development strategic practices for women and organizations. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 60(4), 348. Jackson, S. E., Joshi, A., and Erhardt, N. L. (2003). Recent research on team and organizational diversity: SWOT analysis and implications. Journal of management, 29(6), 801-830. Johnson, G., Whittington, R., Scholes, K., and Pyle, S. (2011). Exploring strategy: Text & Kaplan, R. S. (2005). How the balanced scorecard complements the McKinsey 7-S model.Strategy & Leadership, 33(3), 41-46. Kodama, M. (2007). Innovation and knowledge creation through leadership-based strategic community: Case study on high-tech Company in Japan. Technovation, 27(3), 115-132. Landrum, N. E., Howell, J. P., and Paris, L. (2000). Leadership for strategic change. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 21(3), 150-156. Leadership: the Road Ahead (Vol. 5). Emerald Group Publishing. Management History, 13(4), 371-393. Mi Dahlgaard-Park, S., and Dahlgaard, J. J. (2007). Excellence-25 year’s evolution. Journal of Moore, S. B., and Manring, S. L. (2009). Strategy development in small and medium sized enterprises for sustainability and increased value creation. Journal of cleaner production, 17(2), 276-282. Of strategy development processes. British Journal of Management, 11(2), 151-162. Organising Academy: an assessment. Industrial Relations Journal, 31(5), 400-415. Peng, G. C. A., and Nunes, M. B. (2007). Using PEST analysis as a tool for refining and Porter, M. (2008). On competition. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Pub. Singh, R. K., Garg, S. K., and Deshmukh, S. G. (2008). Strategy development by SMEs for competitiveness: a review. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 15(5), 525-547. Taylor, J. S., de Lourdes Machado, M., and Peterson, M. W. (2008). Leadership and Strategic Management: keys to institutional priorities and planning. European Journal of Education, 43(3), 36-386. Whittington, R. (2002). Organising for success. CIPD Publishing. Whittington, R., Molloy, E., Mayer, M., and Smith, A. (2006). Practices of strategising/organising: broadening strategy work and skills. Long Range Planning, 39(6), 615-629. Read More