In the realm of the 21st century, economic expansion seems to have become the key to successful evolution of a company. The examples of Google and Twitter prove the necessity for a company to grow by adopting the strategy of mergers and acquisitions.
Despite the fact that both companies have a unique pattern of development, they still have a range of points of contact in terms of the images of managing change that they had to go through and, therefore, being pressured into change by similar factors.
A closer look at the current strategy adopted by the Google, Inc. will reveal that the company is clearly putting a very strong emphasis onto the function of a Nurturer.
To be more exact, the organization is obviously doing its best in facilitating the cooperation between different departments of the organization and therefore, making the performance of these departments more cohesive. The necessity to reconsider the course of the company’s processes and reinforce the communication processes between different departments is quite obvious. As an IT company, Google, Inc. must
Twitter in its turn, seems to be focused on the process of nurturing to a much greater degree than Google, though the latter is also clearly searching for non-trivial ways of solving the problems that it encounters on a regular basis within the global market (Siganos, 2013). In the Twitter, Inc., however, the concept of nurturing seems to have been the basis for the company’s functioning since its very foundation.
Indeed, if considering the vision and mission of the Twitter, Inc., one will be able to spot the fact that the organization is geared towards not only recognizing all stakeholders as equally valuable, but also to see information as the key value and the necessity to distribute the acquired data among all stakeholders fairly, therefore, preventing any possible conflicts from happening (Sprangler, 2013).
When it comes to defining the rest of the images of managing change, one must admit that, in Google and Twitter, these are somehow downplayed. It would be wrong to claim that neither of the companies uses such a powerful tool as the image of a coach – quite on the contrary, recent researches show that both organizations are eager for enhancing the core values for the staff to comply with.
However, in the world of global economy, common values are quite hard to retain, and both Google and Twitter understand it pretty well (Jansen, ‎2009). As a result, the companies seem to have shaken off their unique definitions of coaching, as well as making the role of the Director less obvious, in order to promote change through expansion into the world market.
While such a decision might seem flawed, on a larger scale, it is very wise, since it allows for a maximum flexibility for the companies to operate in (Steiber & Alänge, 2013).
Although Google and Twitter represent entirely different approaches towards building relationships with customers and conquering the market, some of the images of managing change in both companies cross at some point, which creates the premises for developing similar pressures for change.
As a close analysis of the acquisitions made by Google and twitter shows, both organizations are aiming at topping the list of the most influential IT companies of the era; more importantly, both firms are willing to navigate efficiently in the sea of the global market.
Hence, such images of managing change as the Navigator and the Nurturer are emphasized greatly in both companies, whereas the roles of a caretaker and coach are downplayed.
Reference List
Jansen, ‎B. (2009). Twitter power: Tweets as electronic word of mouth. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(11), 2169–2220.
Siganos, A. (2013). Google attention and target price run ups. International Review of Financial Analysis, 29(3), 219–226.
Sprangler, T. (2013). Twitter nets social-TV startup blue fin. Multichannel News, 34(6), 22.
Steiber, A. & Alänge, S. (2013). Do TQM principles need to change? Learning from a comparison to Google Inc. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 26(4), 473–486.