Google LLC is currently one of the most successful and profitable companies in the world. This global technology organisation designs and develops different web-based services and products that resonate with the changing demands and expectations of its global clients. Some of its key offerings include commerce, software, hardware products, search systems and desktop solutions. It has millions of customers in every part of the world. Google LLC’s ability to support a powerful business strategy and leadership practices explain why it has remained competitive in the Internet, computer hardware and software industries for the past decade. The purpose of this research paper is to analyse this corporation’s organisational structure, leadership, planning and control.
We will write a custom Report on Google Company’s Fundamentals of Management specifically for you
301 certified writers online
Google LLC Analysis
The success of Google LLC is attributable to various elements and initiatives that make it competitive and aware of different issues existing in its key industries. Being a producer and marketer of different products and technology-based services, this corporation operates directly in these three industries: computer hardware, software, and Internet (Ghemawat 2016). It has applied a powerful business model to deliver positive experiences to all consumers and empower them to achieve their potential.
The leaders at Google pursue the idea of planning since it can deliver positive organisational results. Currently, this corporation utilises a generic differentiation business-level strategy in each of the three sectors. There are various reasons that explain why this happens to be the case. Firstly, the increasing number of current and potential customers compels Google’s managers to consider a sustainable approach to address their needs. Secondly, Reeves (2015) acknowledges that such a generic business-level strategy is capable of making this company more competitive in its key industries. Thirdly, the decision to function and operate in diverse fields or areas means that an appropriate strategy is essential.
Through the power of differentiation, Google LLC has managed to deliver Adwords, Internet-search, software and hardware to different clients depending on their unique expectations. For instance, advertisers can use its services to identify and meet the needs of their respective customers in different geographical regions (Ghemawat 2016). This model has improved the level of customer loyalty due to its ability to deliver reliable outcomes or results. The continued use of this business-level strategy explains why this corporation has remained successful and competitive in each industry.
Google LLC adopts and implements different corporate-level business strategies in an attempt to achieve its goals and remain competitive. The first one is that of business growth strategy whereby all leaders focus on a horizontal model (Ghemawat 2016). This means that the organisation supports new research studies or projects to produce superior products or services that can transform the experiences of potential clients in emerging markets (Reeves 2015). The main reason why it implements this initiative is to support all global clients. Business diversification strategy is also evident at this corporation since its leaders implement a powerful initiative for attracting additional customers and empowering them using the current products, such as Google search engine and Android software (Chen, Eshleman & Soileau 2017). The managers and decision-makers at Google consider such an approach because it is capable of promoting performance, fulfilling the changing needs of different customers and maximising profits. Consequently, this initiative explains why Google LLC has managed to become a leader and successful in its industries. The adoption of such corporate-level business strategies explains why it has managed to achieve its business objectives.
Within the past decade, Google has maintained the above corporate-level and business-level strategies in order to increase stakeholder confidence. It encourages all employees to focus on such aspects and present inputs that are capable of promoting performance (Reeves 2015). The contributions of different participants support strategy development and improvement depending on the emerging needs of clients. With this information, it is evident that Google LLC is not pursuing a new or different strategy (Ghemawat 2016). This remains the case since all managers and departmental leaders focus on the existing ones and improve them continuously depending on the changing demands and expectations of different customers.
Business firms select the most appropriate organisational structure that can deliver the intended results in a timely manner. Sibanda and Ramrathan (2017) define it as a system capable of outlining how specific functions and roles are coordinated and directed within a particular company. The nature of the existing leadership model will determine the way units, managers and departments share information. Google LLC has developed a cross-functional organisational structure that has an increased level of flatness (see Appendix). This is a critical attribute that makes it possible for this corporation to expand its operations and remain competitive in different markets.
The presence of different segments and departments explain why the structure has been expanded to deliver desirable outcomes. For instance, Chen, Eshleman, and Soileau (2017) indicate that Google focuses on specific issues in its corporate model to influence performance, such as products and functions. Its managers follow the concept of function to group its workers depending on their skills, specialisations and contributions to their respective units. There are specific groups that pursue product development, engineering, design and sales operation roles. Google has also gone further to apply the idea of products to group its workers (Rajasekar 2014). This strategy ensures that all employees are willing to engage or collaborate with each other in an attempt to complete their respective goals. The use of a cross-functional structure has, therefore, made it possible for this organisation to achieve most of its goals and remain dominant in its industries.
Google LLC’s structure delivers three hierarchical levels that dictate performance and ensure that positive results are recorded. These include top leadership, functions and employees. The nature of this structure ensures different workers can liaise and collaborate directly with their managers without receiving instructions from departmental heads (Sibanda & Ramrathan 2017). This model is essential since it boosts morale and ensures that all individuals focus on the targeted organisational aims. Such a strategy becomes a powerful opportunity for promoting decision-making and problem-solving processes. The leaders offer insights and ideas that can eventually drive performance.
The issue of control is critical in every business firm. Leaders and managers should be able to guide and empower a certain number of followers and eventually ensure that positive results are recorded. Ghemawat (2016) defines the term, “span of control” as the number of activities, people, or roles a specific individual in leadership position manages. At Google LLC, the CEO is required to take control of five key departments or functions. These include engineering, sales, products, legal and finance. There are specific mid-level managers who are in charge of each of these units (Baldonado 2015). The span of control of these first-line managers is limited to the nature of their positions. For instance, the leader who controls the engineering department will focus on research, information sharing, strategy formulation and development. Under the product department, the manager will be in charge of product management, marketing and customer satisfaction (Durica & Svabova 2015). The finance department leader completes responsibilities in financial planning and real estate. From this analysis, it is notable that control usually takes place at the corporate, individual and functional levels.
The leaders at Google LLC consider various integration mechanisms to ensure that all departments and functions collaborate synergistically to enhance performance. One of the methods this organisation considers is the ability to promote direct contact. This means that managers and leaders meet with their respective followers to coordinate activities and promote the realisation of every identified objective (Downe, Cowell & Morgan 2016). The second integration mechanism is that of liaison. At Google, functional managers liaise with team leaders and subunits to ensure that positive results are recorded as planned. Through the use of such techniques, the company continues to benefit from sufficient coordination among existing functions and people, thereby making it easier to high-quality results (Steiber 2014). The involvement of all participants and departments ensures that different workers focus on the anticipated objectives and functions.
Successful organisations hire chief executive officers (CEOs) who possess appropriate competencies and philosophies that can transform performance and maximise the experiences of different followers. Such leaders will apply different power sources to influence behaviours and contributions to the targeted corporation. Pichai Sundararajan, the CEO of Google LLC, has these two unique sources of power: legitimate and referent (Maritan & Lee 2017). Firstly, his topmost position explains why he can assign projects and responsibilities, appraise performance or contributions and make critical decisions regarding the future of the company. The CEO uses this kind of authority to direct the organisation to the right direction. Secondly, he embraces the effectiveness of referent power since it encourages him to support all followers, thereby winning their admiration and loyalty. The employees refer to the CEO as a role model in order to achieve the intended objectives (Maritan & Lee 2017). This analysis means that Google LLC’s leader possesses adequate power to guide and influence every follower. As a role model, he encourages workers to remain involved and engage in projects that will eventually drive organisational performance.
Pichai Sundararajan engages in various behaviours that can promote productivity. For instance, he is always willing to motivate, inspire and empower his employees and encourage them to be aware of the intended goals. The other leaders also set goals and guide their employees to follow them. The CEO is always passionate and optimistic about the ability to win and deliver positive results. He owns responsibility and always promotes positive attitudes in this organisation (Ghemawat 2016). All workers consider such attributes and emulate them since they are capable of supporting the delivery of positive results. With this analysis, it is evident that Sundararajan engages in issues and practices that are appropriate for every targeted circumstance or situation (Tran 2017). Consequently, the individual has continued to mentor and ensure that all followers are willing to deliver positive results.
At Google, the leader remains task-oriented and relationship-oriented in an attempt to influence organisational performance. This happens to be the case since the CEO is always passionate about positive interactions among employees and first-line managers (Szczepańska-Woszczyna 2015). The leaders encourage workers to establish meaningful teams, support each other, make evidence-based decisions and engage in activities that will eventually maximise profits (Maritan & Lee 2017). This manager collaborates with other supervisors and encourages them to focus on the existing culture. Such aspects make it possible for both leaders and followers to formulate goals, present adequate resources and develop appropriate models for improving operations.
Get your first paper with 15% OFF
The concept of task emerges when Google’s CEO is leading others. This professional believes that employees should always be aware of the anticipated aims and the most appropriate action plans to achieve them (Chen, Eshleman & Soileau 2017). He encourages them to pursue action plans and initiatives that have the potential to support the production of superior services and software that will transform the experiences of all clients (Veliu et al. 2017). With such abilities and attributes, it is notable that this CEO is favorable for the existing situation and ensuring that the company achieves most of its business goals. With the power to inspire and support the establishment of positive behaviours, all employees remain committed and guided in an attempt to deliver the intended objectives.
The idea of motivation is essential since it makes it possible for managers to understand the unique needs of their respective followers and address them using evidence-based strategies. The leader of Google has identified various initiatives and strategies for mentoring and guiding his followers. Pichai Sundararajan has continued to examine the traditions that have existed in this organisation for many years in an attempt to guide and involve all participants. He achieves this objective by ensuring that all employees have good working environments, resources and time (Tran 2017). This achievement ensures that such employees are involved and willing to exhibit their best talents. The individual embraces the ideologies of problem-solving and decision-making. This means that he identifies the unique issues disorienting performance in order to address them whenever they emerge or arise (Chen, Eshleman & Soileau 2017). The CEO collaborates with the HR and finance departments to provide incentives and competitive packages that will increase employees’ morale. Such gains ensure that the targeted workers are always ready to pursue the outlined organisational goals.
The corporate structure Google LLC has adopted creates room for different sources or levels of control. The ultimate objective is to ensure that the intended activities are completed in a timely manner, thereby making it possible for this organisation to remain competitive. The first level at which control takes place is the corporate one (Szczepańska-Woszczyna 2015). The CEO and board of governors formulate evidence-based decisions and actions that are capable of taking the organisation to the next level. They also identify emerging issues and changes that will enhance profitability and productivity. The CEO provides a sense of direction and makes crucial choices regarding strategy. The second source or level of control at Google is the functional one (Algahtani 2014). The first-line managers at this company are expected to guide, dictate and control the actions every employee undertakes. They also develop ideas and decisions that can make their respective departments profitable. Finally, employees are empowered and equipped with the right resources, thereby being able to impart some form of control. Such stakeholders are encouraged to make their personal decisions and pursue projects that will eventually make this company more productive.
Output performance standards are essential since they dictate the effectiveness of implemented strategies and guide leaders to take new actions that are capable of promoting performance. At Google, managers consider the concept of organisational goals to evaluate each strategy’s effectiveness (Chen, Eshleman & Soileau 2017). They achieve this objective by considering various aims, such as profits, sales volumes and customer feedback (Maritan & Lee 2017). The leaders identify and assign specific objectives to different departments and teams and expect them to deliver results within a specific period. The recorded outputs will guide the CEO and other supervisors to determine whether the implemented initiatives are effective or not.
Financial measures are also essential and capable of dictating the efficiency of various strategies. The use of such tools makes it easier for managers to evaluate performance and identify areas that require continuous improvement. This organisation’s financial status is what guides every decision-making procedure or process (Algahtani 2014). The main goal is make sure that the company remains competitive and capable of adding value to its customers.
Google can be described as a less formalised business organisation. This is true since employees do not receive book of rules to guide or show them how they ought to complete their assigned roles. Instead, a positive culture exists whereby individuals are engaged and encouraged to form teams depending on the uniqueness of their projects. Leaders offer incentives and timely guidelines that will improve performance (Allen et al. 2016). Followers are usually involved in every decision-making and problem-solving process. The flat organisational structure associated with Google LLC is what supports such gains or practices.
A positive business culture is evident at Google since employees pursue the values of openness, integrity, trust, commitment and involvement. The basic norms this company supports include the continuous desire to share innovative ideas and the ability to exchange information. All individuals in this company respect one another and engage in activities that can eventually make Google more competitive. With such a positive culture, all workers remain motivated, empowered and ready to collaborate (Maritan & Lee 2017). They also listen to the diverse needs of their customers and treat them with dignity. This kind of practice encourages them to continue doing business with Google, thereby making it a leader in its sectors.
The above discussion has revealed that the application of an effective leadership style, organisational structure, planning and control have made Google LLC a competitive company in the software, computer hardware and Internet industries. All individuals in managerial positions influence positive behaviours, address employees’ needs and provide the best environment for pursuing every outlined aim. Such initiatives encourage followers to remain committed and pursue projects that can eventually make Google LLC successful. Due to these aspects of management, this company has been in a position to achieve its aims and produce superior services and products. Such attributes explain Google LLC remains competitive in each of the outlined three industries. In conclusion, companies that study and copy this corporation’s model will be in a position to achieve their potential, address most of the challenge they face and eventually remain profitable in their respective sectors.
Algahtani, A 2014, ‘Are leadership and management different? A review’, Journal of Management Policies and Practices, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 71-82.
Allen, GP, Moore, WM, Moser, LR, Neill, KK, Sambamoorthi, U & Bell, HS 2016, ‘The role of servant leadership and transformational leadership in academic pharmacy’, American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, vol. 80, no. 7, pp. 113-127.
Baldonado, AM 2015, ‘Workplace fun: learning from Google, Southwest Airlines, and Facebook’, International Journal of Research in Business Studies and Management, vol. 2, no. 12, pp. 15-18.
Chen, Y, Eshleman, JD & Soileau, JS 2017, ‘Business strategy and auditor reporting’, Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 63-86.
Downe, J, Cowell, R & Morgan, K 2016, ‘What determines ethical behaviour in public organisations: is it rules or leadership?’, Public Administration Review, vol. 76, no. 6, pp. 898-909.
Durica, M & Svabova, L 2015, ‘Improvement of company marketing strategy based on Google search results analysis’, Procedia Economics and Finance, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 454-460.
Ghemawat, P 2016, ‘Evolving ideas about business strategy’, Business History Review, vol. 90, no. 4, pp. 727-749.
Maritan, CA & Lee, GK 2017, ‘Resource allocation and strategy’, Journal of Management, vol. 43, no. 8, pp. 2411-2420.
Rajasekar, J 2014, ‘Factors affecting effective strategy implementation in a service industry: a study of electricity distribution companies in the Sultanate of Oman’, International Journal of Business and Social Science, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 169-183.
Reeves, M 2015, ‘Google couldn’t survive with one strategy’, Harvard Business Review, Web.
Sibanda, M & Ramrathan, D 2017, ‘Influence of information technology on organisation strategy’, Foundations of Management, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 191-202.
Steiber, A 2014, The Google model: managing continuous innovation in a rapidly changing world, Springer Shop, New York.
Szczepańska-Woszczyna, K 2015, ‘Leadership and organisational culture as the normative influence of top management on employee’s behaviour in the innovation process’, Procedia Economics and Finance, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 396-402.
Tran, SK 2017, ‘GOOGLE: a reflection of culture, leader, and management’, International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 10-29.
Veliu, L, Manxhari, M, Demiri, V & Lahaj, L 2017, ‘The influence of leadership styles on employee’s performance’, Vadyba Journal of Management, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 59-69.