Strategic Management Practices and Theories - Essay Example

Strategic Management- Culture Introduction When people of different temperaments, abilities and behavior are gathered for a mutual motive to act like a system, they form the very culture of organization. Culture is systematic togetherness of behaviors, which involves customs, practices and activities of individuals. This paper is an analysis of strategic management practices and theories, which according to business scholars fall under the scope of culture. This essay will explore how SM theories imply in modern day business practices through the aid of successful strategic management practices that lead to successful culture. The Resource-Based View and Google Inc: When an organization merges its tangible and intangible resources, it keeps the resource-based view (RBV), allowing itself to move in the pool of competition (Abt, 2007). Management scholars view RBV in a slightly different context. They have signified certain gaps in RBV approach, which needs further critical identification. To verify these gaps in RBV, Google Inc. has been chosen to assess the discrepancies, which is a prominent and successful business organization in the contemporary period (Henry, 2008). There are many things besides the Resource-based view that brought Google into a success position. Innovation is the first key step that marked its way towards successful performance (Farnham, 2014). Similarly, it is Google’s top leadership, which had the vision and competitiveness to bring the organization to that successive phase. Above of all, it was Google’s mastery of knowledge management (KM) that brought the company in to such distinction of progression. Not to forget, Google’s reliance on innovative strategies to make it both cost and product effective (Barney, 2001). Google kept the Resource-Based view of its resources, but also enhanced its culture of innovation to gain competitive advantage (Burke, 2010). It was something more than just adaptation of RBV concept that brought Google to success. All this indicates that Resource-Based view is not the only thing required for competitive success, but there are other significant factors that bring competitiveness within organization. RBV approach is basically contributes lesser for competitiveness (Abt, 2007). Google relies on innovation for competitiveness. Google relies on visionary leadership for competitiveness. Competitiveness is an exceptional quality brought through exceptional strategies. Resource-Based view has a smaller scope in value and competitiveness. Mergers and Acquisitions and Google: Through contemporary business perspective, mergers and acquisitions are strategic dimensions for any emerging organization (Phillips & Gully, 2011). According to general perspective of organization’s leadership, mergers and acquisitions are sufficient to raise company’s horizontal knowledge, which is very important for bringing competitiveness in long term (Farnham, 2014). Google’s one not such a successful merger was ‘Android phone application’, which gave Google less patent-ship and more risk of losing market distinction. Initially, it seemed to be a failure; as Google encompassed all its knowledge into stake with its partner Samsung. But, later with company’s leadership pro-activeness and strategic mindset, the merger came out exceptionally well for the company. From there onwards, Google became famous for smart phone application services after this merger. Strategic mergers fail because of organization’s leadership. If leadership lacks any of the exceptional qualities of competitiveness and visionary notions, there are huge chances of strategic failure (Farnham, 2014). Organizational Change: In Google’s case, change is both evolution and revolution. It is innovation that came out as change in Google. Individuals of the organization were inspired to this replicated change, which came from their top competitive leadership (Abt, 2007). They became part in making this change a true organization success (Phillips & Gully, 2011). For Google there were several restraining factors or forces of change like the new change model, the risk of failing the change model, less of the capital resources and less knowledge resources to imply change. Similarly, the organization had certain driving forces, the forces which actually motivated change within the organization system. These were leadership’s strategic pro-activeness, leadership’s vision, employees’ commitment and most significantly competitive Human Resource (Burke, 2010). According to Lewin, there are mainly two forces of change, which are both restraining forces and driving forces. Lewin’s model of change, does not specify what these forces are or what they are likely to be in an organization like Google (Henry, 2008). The model is left quite open for its interpretation and understanding. Similarly, Balogun and Hailey change model describes change as revolution and evolution. The evolutionary change refers to a proactive one, while revolution is very instinctive and reactive form of change. Again, the critique sums up that change is revolution and for which it could be called evolution (Phillips & Gully, 2011). Change is radical in a competitive organization like Google. Revolution or Evolution, are forms of change. Change is gradual and requires time to be instilled in an organization’s culture and system. Strategic leadership is inevitable for the establishment of change. The Cultural Web and Google: With strategic collaboration of 50,000 specialists, Google is able to raise its market share to $100 billion (Abt, 2007). This shows how much competitive the structure of Google as an organization. Decentralization culture is instilled in Google. This divides the power and the share of resources within organizations individuals. Overall, Google depicts a very innovative and modular culture (Sun, 2008). Google Cultural Web In Google, culture is not just a culture, but it is a complete method of how the organization progresses (Abt, 2007). A decentralized culture is more successful than centralized in competitive organizations. Google has a decentralized culture. One of Google’s secret to success is its competitive culture. Difference between Google’s Strategic Alliances and Ventures: Leadership of Google has always kept the strategic move active by forming alliances with most strategic partners in the business and that is why Google has never been a venture making company, but an entirely strategic organization. Analyzing Google’s case, it could be said that joint ventures are expansion of tangible resources like capital or man power, whereas strategic alliances are expansion of thoughts and intangible assets of knowledge and competitiveness (Henry, 2008). International business strategies: Expansion is always an option for Small medium enterprises (SMEs). It is because they want to explore their opportunity to expand businesses. Small Medium Enterprises move forward towards global market because that gives them the chance of true and ideal progression. There are some generic strategies that could take SME’s to successful business expansion. Strategies like cost differentiation, innovation and market differentiation are some of the most radical business strategies. These are the most successful and widely adapted strategies by international organizations (Phillips & Gully, 2011). Conclusion This essay describes different theories of strategic management and basic accomplished objective here was to evaluate critically different SM theories and models. Hence, the essay establishes effective critique on SM models and practices and determines its loopholes and advantages coherently. References Abt, L., 2007. Google Inc. Marketing case study analysis. Research Report. Rivier College. Barney, J., 2001. Resource-based theories of competitive advantage: A ten-year retrospective on the resource-based view. Journal of Management, 27(6), pp.643-50. Burke, W.W., 2010. Organization Change: Theory and Practice. London: Sage. Farnham, A., 2014. Googles best and worst big acquisitions. [Online] Viewed at: [Accessed 15 March 2015]. Henry, A., 2008. Understanding Strategic Management. New York: Oxford University Press. Phillips, J. & Gully, S., 2011. Organizational Behavior: Tools for Success. New York: Cengage Learning. Sun, S., 2008. Organizational Culture and Its Themes. International Journal of Business Management, 3(12), pp.137-41. Read More