Google is a result of collaborative efforts of Sergey Brian and Larry Page; they were the students of PhD at the Stanford University. This bright idea hit them during the education, to develop a worldwide search engine, which could be used and deployed worldwide. The page ranking algorithm developed by Brian and Larry was rated as the most intelligent software as it could cater any content throughout web and could tell the importance of the pages as well. The mechanism deployed behind the Google search engine was that it uses page ranking algorithm in connection with back-linking of data. Also, the present E-commerce business is only appreciated and assisted by the Google search engine as it can let the business owners calculate the importance of their pages at the search engine (BOTTOM and KONG, 2010).
Google is the fastest search engine worldwide, the journey began with the launch of the search engine and it never stopped till now. Even they named their company behind the software developed, as Google was winning acknowledgment throughout the world. Recently, another application launched in 2004, Google’s email system-Gmail, was another striking strategy of Google company which catered the initiative for many new businesses. There is always an opportunity behind every business strategy.
Google achieved a major profit share of $1.67 billion, when launched Gmail for the first time. Google’s every new innovation added to the advertisement of Google’s Business. On the other hand, this business innovation leaded to a tremendous increase in the services offered by the company. Also, during the economical crunch, the introduction of various services and keeping up the marketing and advertisement pace distracted the management. This in later run is calculated to be disastrous for the company’s growth. This can also initiate the identity crisis for the company, as it would be difficult to specify the company’s production as a software company, Hardware Company or a company offering search solution. This could be injurious to company’s goals, as they are increasing their competitors from different industries and for every competitor they have to make a separate strategy (Campbell, 2014).
These factors could demand from the management of Google to serve equivalent time on innovating new strategies to keep up the competitive pace with the rivals in other industries and on the same time, improving the existing services, so that their customer’s do not ever have this impression that they are receiving any out-dated services.
As a strategy consultant, I find the Ashridge Model to be relevant to the mission and strategies developed at Google. With the help of this model, the mission statement finalized at the beginning of 2013 would be analyzed, also, it would be assessed that the recent expansion and the long term direction focused by the management are in favor of Google or not!
The Ashridge model explains that what a mission of a company is in real. When the organizations deviate from their missions, there are great chances that their business would end up in failures. I would apply the Ashridge model on the Google Company to analyze that if the company’s tough competitive environment is due to the introduction of new services or due to the advertisement or up-gradation of existing services.
Detailed Understanding of Mission
Mission is the main reason a business is working for. Behind every successful business, there is always a strong mission. If any mission fails means that a business is unable to achieve any goal, reflects the management’s negligence. The management is unable to clearly direct their goals. Moreover, in many businesses the mission statement is given a little importance and very little efforts are served for conducting a detailed research on the goals defined. The mission statement of Google, “Gathering information worldwide and making it conveniently accessible for everyone” would be analyzed through, the Ashridge model to asses that if the desired outcome is catered through the mission statement or the company is lacking behind the targeted goals. The understanding of the mission is different for everyone, it depends upon the perception that how one conceives about the mission statement but generally, mission is depicted as the underlying strength ability for every business (Chambers and Taylor, 1999).
Another factor is the ‘managers’, which greatly influences the understanding of mission throughout the workforce. If a company as like Google is operated by two managers, then there are greater chances that the mission could be confused among the workforce, as both would explain and configure the mission strategies according to their perspective. If critically analyzed, the mission statement of Google at the beginning of the year 2013 has plotted a huge competition in various dimensions. This not only demands for increasing competition in the innovation field but continuous updating of the existing services. This would also raise various competitors from different industries. Such as, if Google is going to launch an android phone then it is inviting a serious competition for many other companies who are solely working as an android phone producing companies. They would surely left no stone unturned for stopping Google form picking up their profit share.
These act would in-return acquire Google to serve more efforts and resources on the introduction and maintenance of Google android phones. This activity could lessen the attention and efforts to be served on other or the core services offered by Google. Thus, Google should focus on the actual mission on which they began operating. This would help the management to continuously improve in their field and would not let any other strong contender to establish and give them a tough competition (Daniel, 2014).
Building a Clear Picture of Mission
The mission is the core of any business, for Google they are aiming to spread information worldwide. But if they want to equally participate in other business fields as well then they should clearly direct these to their employees with the incentives they would get if they perform keeping their mind and brain aligned. The main driving force behind any mission is the employees. If they are clear about the mission they are working on and they are given the confidence that if they work out of the bounds with dedication, then they are fully capable of qualifying to the incentives, which would assist them with satisfaction and the a great support in their economy as well (Willson, 2014).
Approach to Mission Accomplishment
It has been observed that the workforce at Google is fully motivated towards the achievement of goals targeted by the business management. This is the reason that Google has been unbeatable since beginning. With every new innovation no matter if it is a product or service, Google has always served quite the information. The employees at Google are enthusiastic and fully committed towards any new services, Google is aiming to offer. For the managers, they direct the workforce about the professional behavior acquired at the company and the standards that are demanded to be maintained but for employees, by conferring to these standards, they would be able to live their life standards. The management of Google is observed to be committed for motivating the employees to work hard for achieving companies goals. The workforce is convinced that if they give in their maximum for the commitments and sustain any type of peer pressure to depict an astounding behavior, they would in return receive a reasonable amount which would not only assist them financially but would give them a sense of self-satisfaction that they have achieved the company’s standards (Ellery, 2010).
When it was questioned from employees that why they are working so dedicatedly towards achieving companies goals, they all were fully focused and clearly said that they their company is working on the right path and the mission targeted could be achieved practically (William, 2014).
Purpose behind the Operational Capacity of Google
After analyzing the mission of the company, the next big target was to asses that if the company is operating on the purpose it had, when it began operating. After analyzing this factor, it was observed that Google has deviated from its original purpose and has moved on another path. This could cause serious damage in the future and Google could lose the loyalty of customers, when they would not be able to find the Google services they are enjoying since long. Till now Google is still maintain the search operational capacity but the decision of plunging in other businesses could either over-burden the workforce, could increase the expenses enormously or could lessen the quality of services such as search engine solutions or other features in which Google has quite the expertise (Strategy + Business, 2014).
Strategy of Google
Thus, Google needs to revise it strategy for the year 2013, because the business calculations have not shown successful results. Google may encounter much competition this could deviate them from their original mission and the space of business capacity which was forbidden for trespassing for other businesses, would be taken over in no time.
Strategic Decision Making at Google
Google has successfully operated this far due to the effective strategic decisions developed by the management. It is the responsibility of the management that how well they direct the project goals to their workforce. If the management themselves if not confident about the outcome of the business strategies then how can they make their employees believe in giving in their maximum. The management at Google is observed to have excellent management qualities because this far they have successfully directed their workforce towards the organizational goals (Grant, 2008).
Management is the art of creatively solving any query as it was never in the first place. For successfully executing the strategic decision making at Google, the management effectively goes through the four stages, so that nothing is missed in between and this may not end up in the failure of project, the four stages are: planning, organizing, leading and controlling. The planning is the major phase; management at Google has been in the effective practice of planning nay new project form long and beforehand. It is mainly because they have to calculate the strength, availability of their workforce along with the resources required to be spent, also, if this would bring back the success and recognition or there are any chances that this project would be a failure (Sridhar, 2013).
Google has planned for plunging into another business such as developing the android operating system. For this they have an opportunity to collaborate with Motorola, however, the management is reluctant in finalizing this collaboration because they want to enjoy the success alone by the name of Google. But few things they should focus are that for developing the android system they are not only going to develop an out-standing operating system but they need to have this thing in view as well that for launching the android phone they need to have a mobile phone equipment with unique designs and features, which would differentiate it from other phones. This requirement could demand for the investment in manufacturing of mobile phones and then the mobile phone applications as well. In return they are inviting a new competition, as many companies like HTC and Nokia are solely operating for manufacturing the mobile phones (John, 2014).
The companies who are solely operating as a mobile phone manufacturer would give Google a tough competition for not taking their major profit share. Thus, this plan of Google for the year 2013 should be assessed again and given a detailed thought that if it is feasible for the company or not.
Strategic Planning for Future Goals at Google
The long term plan for the year 2013 acquires strategic planning regarding the strength, weakness opportunities and threats for the decided plan, that whether or not it is feasible for company’s goals. The strategic decision making of management at Google has always been effective but the plan for year 2013 has raised many fears that if the company is deviating from their original path and if they are doing so then how far this will go. Would it be suitable in the company’s interest?
At Google two types of planning procedures are catered during the strategic decision making process (Knippen, 1996).
Operational Planning of Google for Future Projects
It caters the organization as a whole unit and devises plans for achieving certain objectives. This is a short tem planning, which offers thorough support for the long term planning and assists the management in making strategic decision for achieving company’s goals.
Tactical Planning
It is a concrete form of planning which is designed in a concrete form to achieve any nearby future plan. This is a baseline for gaining the targeted goals by the management. The management of second level is responsible for the tactical planning and when once planned they present this plan to their senior managers.
Organizing Strategy Deployed at Google
This is the foremost important task after planning, as it involves the main decision like if the workforce required for the project is available and how much amount of workforce or resources could be allocated for any project. Google, should have a thorough calculations that if their existent workforce is quite enough for the new projects or whether they need to hire new employees for working on the new projects. This is important to consider because the new projects are not the only source for investing and gaining profits in a new field but demands for excessive efforts in the beginning to establish the projects successfully (MacCormack, 1934).
Leading for Execution of Business Procedure by Management
The management of Google has good leadership skills and until now they have successfully motivated and guided their workforce to achieve the targeted goals. Even now they can lead their workforce successfully towards achieving the targeted goals.
Thus, after leading their workforce, the management of second level should control their employees in the right direction, so that employees remain on the right path and execute the desired results out of them (Morrison, 2014).
The Critical Assessment of Strategic Decision Making at Google
The strategic decision making is the core of success for any business like Google operating at a large scale. Since beginning, Google has been undefeated due to its systematic approach towards the goals defined, as they have thoroughly planned and executed every event. Also, Google is known to be the ‘intelligence magnet’ for the geniuses around the globe. However, in my opinion the decision taken by the management of Google for launching new android phone in the coming year of 2013, is observed to be a major risk towards the successful operational capacity of the company. The management is designing this project to be launched by developing strategic decision, but in true means this strategy is not capable enough of picturing the exact future results of every opportunity. The management is avoiding the risk of increased competition among the IT industry, which would demand Google to serve additional efforts to sustain the pressure and maintain the quality. This could move Google from the original functional capacity and there are more chances that it could plunge the success of Google in identity crisis. Thus, it would be recommended that the management of Google should cater the risk factor involved before investing efforts and resources into a complete new field. This is important because the management could face many hiccups during the execution of the project and later for sustaining the market competition. It is advised to stay in their own circle of IT world and present innovative ideas which would guarantee success for the company. (Piatetsky-Shapiro, 2013). Till now Google has always enjoyed the privileged of achievements but this time Google is actually deviating from their path.
References
BOTTOM, W. and KONG, D. (2010). Normative Models for Strategic Decision Making in Industrial-Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 3(4), pp.417-420.
Campbell, A. (2014). MISSION AND MANAGEMENT. 1st ed. Canada: The Daily, p.1.
Chambers, L. and Taylor, M. (1999). Strategic planning.Aldershot, Hants, England: Ashgate Pub.
Daniel, A. (2014). Digital Technology: Transforming Lifestyles and Business Practices. 1st ed. Westridge.
Ellery, V. (2010). How Do We Teach Reading as a Strategic, Decision-Making Process?. The Reading Teacher, 63(5), pp.434-436.
Grant, R. (2008). Contemporary strategy analysis. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub.
John, K. (2014). Decision Making. 1st ed. Illinois: The Publishers, p.1.
Knippen, J. (1996). Coping with one’s boss: how to help your boss make better decisions. Managerial Auditing Journal, 11(3), pp.47-48.
MacCormack, E. (1934). The Orbit of Boss 35 BR. ApJL, 80, p.120.
Morrison, J. (2014). ANALYSIS OF DECISION-MAKING STRATEGIES UTILIZIED BY HISPANIC BUSINESS LEADERS FOR DETERMINING THE CREDIBILITY OF INFORMATION SOURCES. 1st ed. NewYork: The Business, p.2.
Piatetsky-Shapiro, G. (2013). Comment on “A Revolution That Will Transform How We Live, Work, and Think: An Interview with the Authors of Big Data ”. Big Data, 1(4), pp.193-193.
Sridhar, K. (2013). Employment branding at Google: a challenge to attract and/or build talent. IJSSOC, 5(4), p.350.
Strategy+ Business, (2014). strategy+business: international business strategy news articles and award-winning analysis. [online] Available at: http://www.strategy-business.com/ [Accessed 3 Dec. 2014].
William, S. (2014). Improving decision making in organisations. 1st ed. Kentbury: The Techs, p.1.
Willson, J. (2014). ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF THE STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT IN THE CURRENT ECONOMIC CONTEXT. 1st ed. Illinois: Sage, p.2.
