Saving Google through Organizational Culture Improvement - Research Paper Example

Saving Google through Organizational Culture Improvement The purpose of this research paper is to highlight the challenges which the Google Company has been encountering in the recent past. This is unlike what has transpired since its establishment when it was enjoying a large chunk of the online market on its own. However, competitors with similar offerings have emerged, and are threatening Google’s profit-making. The research reveals the reasons as to why the competitors are gaining in on Google, or rather, the failures in organization culture which have led to this occurrence. These include laxity, overdependence on a single product, lack of unique products, and non-specific market segments. In the final part, the research provides suggestions which can be applied in ensuring that Google remains atop of all its competitors. These include creating differentiation, restructuring organizational cultures, and targeting specific markets as per their niches. Introduction One of the biggest reapers from the 21st century virility of information technology is the Google Company formed in 1998. It provides, amongst multiple other services, a search engine, email, online storage, money transfer, click banks, video streaming, and educational resources. These combined, Google has proven to be a major shareholder in the online business, and continues to enjoy the domination over other minor companies trying to ape the similar business. The recent past has, however created major concerns with Google since its competitors who include Microsoft, Yahoo, Bing, and Baidu have been closing in the competitive gap between them. This is partially because Google has become reluctant with maintaining its business models, and partially because the competitors have been working round the clock to upgrade their services by highlighting Google’s weaknesses, and avoiding them. As such, the online giant company faces stiff competition, in addition to declining reputation and preference of its users, and which, if not critically considered may see the company sink into irrelevancy. Google’s major shortcomings are all related to failures in organizational culture which consist of organizational cultures, management structures, market identification, and laxity in marketing amongst others. Several literatures support these observations which upon analyses can provide recommendations regarding solutions to the problems highlighted which once applied would guarantee Google a prolonged dominance in the online market. Problem statement Previous analyses have proven that failure in key organizational contexts such as organizational culture has contributed to the declining preference and reputation of Google, which gives the competitors some encouragement to close in the margin. Organizational culture failure here defines the environment of Google’s interior working environment, which largely consists of employees and their respective duties. The idea here is that they are failing to incorporate life experiences, know-how, weaknesses, leadership, strengths, and business demands when designing their working model. This can be attributed to the reluctance or belittling of its competitors and that is what has led to the emerging risks which threaten Google’s dominance. The above claims will be supported by an analysis of literatures drawn from multiple sources, and from these, recommendations will be made on how to best restate Google in its original stance with regard to online market share. Literature review The literatures used in this research are scholarly and seek to highlight the shortcomings within the Google Company, and especially those oriented towards organizational culture failures. The articles generally reveal that the reason why Google is falling from its previous giant state of ruling the online market is because there seems to be laxity and overlooking of critical aspects. Additionally, the articles agree to it that while Google remains tangled in its challenges, its affiliated competitors are closing in fast, striving to acquire more market share of what belongs to Google. Concisely, the authors of these literatures feel that Google is indeed headed downwards due to issues which they similarly highlight, and that a lot needs to be done to save and restate the company in its original placement in the online business market. From the analysis of these literatures, solutions to Google’s nose-diving can be devised. Methodology This research combined both qualitative and quantitative approaches by reviewing literatures from multiple sources, all of which have been accredited as scholarly. This ensured the data collected is accurate and can be supported in full. These sources all define the various ways in which Google has been overlooking organizational culture, and what effects this has been having on it. The articles have all been chosen from an online database, and were filtered as per their relevance to the issue. Additionally, they are the most recent articles done on the same, and thus contain the most updated information regarding Google, its competitors, and the emerging issues. The information herein stated has been thoroughly considered, and not drawn from single, but multiple articles. In short, any information stated in this research has been condensed from reviewing several sources, upon which the noted issues have been seen appearing in a good number of them. The interpretations have been made based on common business knowledge after findings were condensed from the multiple articles. In some cases, the interpretations have been made relying on forecasting (adhering to current trends), and may therefore change in the future in the event that certain variables emerge in future. Generally, the drawn literatures each define an issue which has been attributed to the risks facing Google in the organizational cultural context, in addition to the strategies being applied by competitors. It is from these observations or findings that potential recommendations have been drawn backed by business applications. These recommendations present the means through which Google can overcome its organizational structure weaknesses, or how it can reduce the impact of the emerging issues. Data analysis According to Brown (2009), the most general challenge which faces Google, and which upon its combination with organizational culture may largely affect the online giant, its fast-emerging competition. This, as Brown puts it, has emerged due the large market share, which Google has been enjoying for quite some time now with minimal unmatched competition, and that is what led to the reluctance by the entire companies’ employers and employees. The key income-generating tool of Google has been online advertising, that is in comparison to all the products that it offers. Online advertising alone contributes to approximately 70 percent of Google’s overall turnover. The problem began with the emergence of new similar companies such as Yahoo and Microsoft who are constantly upping their share in the same market with a current possession of 31 percent of what was once Google’s market shares. In short, Google is losing its grip on the larger market share to the new competition. The top management takes the largest responsibility of this trend while the employees follow closely. The top management has the responsibility to create the roadmaps which the subordinate staff is supposed to adhere to. The reason why the employees may underperform or lack to perform at all is simply because the top management has failed in its implementation (overseeing) responsibilities. In recent years, and since its inception, Google has enjoyed its success without much demand for marketing, or making itself popular in new environments. This, as Patterson (2013) reveals, is because it has been the most popular search engine the world over, and almost everyone had to “Google” all their searches. That is one way through which the online company went viral, and that very same reason contributed to its current deterioration of organizational culture. The most affected part is that the employers and employees got accustomed to this automatic flow of events, and seemingly assumed what the future was bound to bring. This has placed the company in a critical state because by the time the company realized it needed to start marketing its products, other similar service providers had invaded new environments and were enjoying a reputation and preference similar to that of Google. As earlier highlighted, the most profitable service under Google has been online marketing, and that is seemingly what it largely relies on to remain profitable. The problem with this is that it is possible that the current business model by Google has “brainwashed” is an entire workforce on over-emphasizing on online advertising while ignoring the other products. This has in turn perfected the business of online marketing while the other products remain with their flaws which go unnoticed. The obvious danger here is that in the event that a competitor offers better services and products under the “other categories” apart from online marketing, Google automatically loses its market share in them (Lamb, Hair, & McDaniel, 2012). However, the most outstanding danger is that in relying on purely online marketing to remain profitable, the organization faces danger if future trends dictate less demands for online marketing, or if a competitor successfully overtakes it (Kelly, 2012). This would mean that if Google has no other sources of income, then it turns to making losses; and that would mark the end of it. The major challenges facing Google as of today remain in the research and development departments (improvement or innovating business model), human resources (managing employees), corporate social responsibility (concern for stakeholders and shareholders), and marketing (capturing and maintaining new market segments). One possible explanation to these might lie in a dysfunctional or ignorant workforce, with respect to the parties attributed to executing such tasks. Again in this, organizational culture plays a role. This is chiefly so because such tasks are activated by attitudes, behaviors, beliefs, and philosophies of individuals within an organization, and upon their failure, that points at organizational culture failure. This can be better put as that Google has failed to effectively identify its strengths, weaknesses, threats and opportunities. These are in turn working against it because without such, customer satisfaction and attraction is bound to be averagely low. If a company does not understand its constituent problems and strengths, then it is likely to lose its market share (Lee, Liu & Weiping, 2013). Findings The above section can be summarized as that Google’s decline in the online business originates largely from internal organizational culture failure, which competitors have been taking advantage of. As Verhaert (2014) states, organizational structure which includes corporate strategies, structures, innovations, and level of inter and intra-relationships go a long way in determining the success of an organization. This relates to the findings in that the articles point at similar causal factors and these are lack of identifying strengths and weaknesses, common belief in one service or product as most important, and reluctance in marketing, all of which paint the competitors as gaining more ground than Google is making ahead of them. The general feeling across the articles is that the internal shortcomings within Google are making it easier for the competitors to snatch what were once Google’s market shares. One reason why this is so is that, there is likelihood that, when Google realized it was automatically marketing itself, it lost the significance of conducting more marketing. Second, the company seemed to have enjoyed skyrocketing play in online business that it looked down on regularly evaluating its abilities and limitations, and these have begun working against it. Third, Google seems to rely chiefly on one product in remaining profitable, and with its position in the vast IT market, which varies unexpectedly, it risks making losses or even becoming extinct. The final finding, and which is of key concern is that the competitors seem to be analyzing these weaknesses by Google and addressing them in their own businesses. This has in turn made some new companies more popular in some regions than Google, while some customers are migrating from Google to other companies in search of better products and services. Recommendations To solve the issue of competitors providing similar services, Google should come up with a differing strategy, which is, come up with methods that will make it unique in the competitive environment. These strategies would see to it that Google comes up with products and services which are unique from the rest. This adheres to Lu et al (2013) who affirm that the more unique a company is from the others, the better the chances it has in overcoming competitors, and retaining its market share. The second mitigation measure is to not focus primarily on its profit-making but also on stakeholders and shareholders. This shortfall is derived from the observation that when Google began making easy profits and going viral, it ignored marketing and all other variables. These variables include the stakeholders who as the business context define them, have a large effect on the success of any organization (Servaes & Tamayo, 2012). As such, Google’s organizational cultures should always incorporate the stakeholders, of which marketing and CSR are largely part of. Finally, and upon addressing the intra-organizational factors which sum up to culture failures, Google should implement stiff competitive strategies. This can only be achieved by one, upgrading its service and products so they outmatch those of competitors, providing quality services at rates which do not exploit clients and potential clients as well, and diversifying its range of products so that it provides multiple products and services under the same business entity (Cameron & Quinn, 2011). With all these in check, Google should identify certain market segments and customize its products in line with the market niche. In short, each market segment should be unique from the other, and address the direct demands of the people in it. This is one effective way of eliminating competition and boosting reputation while attracting potential clients (Shin, 2001). Conclusion The research conducted revealed that the privileges which Google once enjoyed when it dominated the online market freely are endangered. The reasons being that laxity has overridden the internal organization of Google, and this has been possibly orchestrated by organizational beliefs, attitudes, and myths. The results from this include overdependence on a single product for profit, lack of critical organizational evaluation, and worst of all creation of loopholes for competitors to close in on Google. The findings reveal that the trends are reversible and have to be initiated from within the company itself before it seeks to counter the external factors. The stated recommendations include addressing dysfunctional organization cultures, coming up with different strategies, consideration for stakeholders and finally marking and satisfying specific markets as per their niches. These observed; Google is bound to continue enjoying its domination in the online business. References Brown, B. C. (2009). Google income: How anyone of any age, location, and/or background can build a highly profitable online business with Google. Ocala, Fla: Atlantic Pub. Group. Cameron, K. & Quinn, R. (2011). Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture: Based on the Competing Values Framework. John Wiley & Sons. Kelly, M. (2012, January 29). “96 Percent of Google’s Revenue is Advertsing, Who Buys It?” VB News. Retrieved on August 7, 2014 from http://venturebeat.com/2012/01/29/google-advertising/ Lamb, C. W., Hair, J. F., & McDaniel, C. D. (2012). Essentials of marketing. Mason, Ohio: South-Western Cengage Learning. Lee, J, Liu, C, &Weiping, L. (2013). “Searching for internet freedom in china: a case study on googles china experience”, Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal, 31 (2), 405-434. Lu, Y,, Hu, S,, Liang, Q,, Lin, D,, &Peng, C, (2013). “Exit, voice and loyalty as firm strategic responses to institutional pressures A comparative case study of Google and Baidu in mainland China.” Chinese Management Studies.7(3), 419-446. Patterson, M. (2013, July). “”Google and Search-Engine Market Power.” Harvard Journal of Law & Technology. 1-25. Servaes, H. & Tamayo, A. (2012, June). “The Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility on Firm Value: The Role of Customer Awareness.” Management Science. 59 (5). 1045-1061. Shin, N. (2001). “Strategies for Competitive Advantage in Electronic Commerce.” Journal of Electronic Commerce Research. 2(4). 164-172. Verhaert, J. (2014). “The challenges involved with the application of article 102 TFEU to the New Economy: A case study of Google.” European Competition Law Review. 35 (6),265. Read More