Sundar Pichai is a forward-thinking executive who is known for his innovative and strategic ways of thinking. Prior to making decisions, he immerses himself in the intricacies of a process. However, there are certain occasions in which his decisions were significantly problematic as a result of erroneous projections, poor research, and disengagement among crucial organizational players, which ultimately led to flawed decision-making processes. Pichai was subjected to criticism that centered on the conservative decision-making methods he used, which were blamed for derailing possibilities for acquisition and hiring.
Google and Alphabet companies have always sought expansion and growth through radical innovations and production. As the CEO of both companies, some acquisition opportunities were called off due to Pichai’s cautious administrative standing, which affected their productivity. For instance, in 2017, Google executives proposed an acquisition opportunity whereby the team considered acquiring Shopify Inc. to expand their online commerce service and give Amazon Inc. stiff competition (Ivey Business School Foundation, 2022, p.2). Pichai rejected the idea, citing high expenses over an unprecedented project. The team considered the price fair, but this could not change Pichai’s decision. After Pichai declined this proposal, Shopify’s share price increased ten times the initial value, resulting in a significant loss of opportunity. This situation indicated that Pichai’s conservative strategy could cause the organization significant losses if the trend continues.
His conservative decision-making also influenced how he responded to external and internal scrutiny. During public testimony at the US House of Representatives, Pichai declined to answer a question that threatened to tarnish the organization’s reputation (Ivey Business School Foundation, 2022, p.7). When asked if they would deny slave labor to help develop products, he was undecided and said he needed to consult, which is unexpected of a leader. Afterward, a director calmed the suspense by answering the question with a yes, indicating disengagement among the executives. His decision to keep silent on a controversial social issue made the company appear unstable and questionable in its ethical practices. Every company relies on brand reputation to maintain clients and win other potential customers. When the reputation is tarnished, there can be significant consequences on the company’s viability, such as a reduction in its market shares.
Another significant concern in his leadership was the slow hiring processes. This issue is highlighted by the scenario where the seat for the general counsel position took the company a year after the headhunting process. Pichai took a long to appoint the general counsel post’s successor, resulting in significant distress in the organization (Thoha & Avandana, 2020, p.810). Most company executives dismissed his idea of a prolonged search, considering it was ambiguous and costly (Ivey Business School Foundation, 2022, p.6). However, Pichai believed the delay would make the team choose a leader based on meritocracy. This protracted process was unnecessary and indicated a flaw in his decision-making competency.
Another significant issue demonstrating slight inaccuracy in Pichai’s leadership choices included delaying product launches and closing new projects that indicated reduced potential. Google’s CEO decided to reduce the product span by discarding projects that were not profiting the organization (Ivey Business School Foundation, 2022, p.7). One prevalent issue is that these products are all created to serve people, and pitching them before their time lapsed was irrational. Another problem was delaying products until other competitors made a similar product. The idea of market saturation was ignored in his decisions about product launch and closure, which also indicated a problem in the decision-making process.
Sundar Pichai also demonstrated a warning habit of dismissing challenges, which could reduce innovation and organizational justice. He rejected a research paper by Dr Timint Gebru, who uncovered the apparent bias in Google’s AI technology (Ivey Business School Foundation, 2022, p.4). Instead of taking this criticism as a strategy to establish better technological products, the informant was fired with immediate effect despite the numerous pleas by Google’s employees for the paper to be validated. This action dismissed the idea of affiliative governance whereby a leader encourages their team to engage in processes that could enhance the efficacy of the organizational processes.
However, all these actions had clear backing, indicating that Pichai was not entirely faulty in his decision-making. For instance, the acquisition of Spotify was rejected since it was an expensive project and not a game changer. The reports indicated that unconventional projects for both Google and Alphabet were turning out to be costly, considering that they generated revenue of $178million and losses of $1.1 billion (Ivey Business School Foundation, 2022, p.5). This trend would make any leader make cautionary decisions concerning acquisition to avoid bankruptcy.
Another issue was the slow hiring process, leading to increased workload and unrest in the organization. Pichai’s idea to delay the hiring process was based on his wanting the perfect match for the position. The CEO wanted a tech-oriented leader who understood the organization’s goals and was the ideal candidate to fill the position. Although the process was problematic, with many terming it as a joke, it ended well when Halimah DeLaine Prado, a long-term company legal team executive, was appointed (Ivey Business School Foundation, 2022, p.4). This appointment indicated appreciation of merit for long-serving employees since her appointment was like a rank promotion.
Although Pichai’s decisions were slow, they were tactical and company-oriented. Another choice that lacked backup indicating a slight error in his judgment as Google and Alphabet leader, was the rejection of a proposal that challenged the company process. He dismissed research presented by an insider on the flaws in their IT process, citing that it lacked merit and this indicated irrational thinking (Ivey Business School Foundation, 2022, p.4). The reason is that the information would have benefited the company’s processes by enhancing the innovations and strategies used to avoid either replication or irrelevant upgrading.
Another issue that indicates his judgment was slightly off was the fact that he rushed the launch of the product based on the efforts that competitors were making. He also abandoned some projects even though their deadlines had not yet passed. The reason behind this decision is that when all of the rivals introduce products in the market, there is limited product saturation since there are various alternatives accessible, which results in a reduction in market share. All of these considerations suggest that Puchai’s leadership was slightly defective due to a variety of problems, including ineffective involvement with stakeholders, improper research, and projections.
Reference List
Ivey Business School Foundation. (2022). Google’s Chief Executive: In Need of a Change Leadership Style? (W25879).pp. 1-12. Ivey.
Thoha, N. and Avandana, I.M.N.W., 2020. Project Managers’ Leadership Styles and Their Effects on Project Management Performance. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences & Humanities, 28(2), pp. 805-816. Web.