Creativity and innovation can be perceived as the core values at Google, and all executives at Google are expected to pursue continuous innovation at all levels of the company. The capability of employees to develop fresh services and capture market share has elevated the employees into leaders within the marketplace. Nevertheless, the increased size of the workforce should not directly translate to more bureaucracy. This centre’s on not letting hierarchy, titles, organizational culture, and levels obscure creativity and execution of the company’s objectives. Some of the core questions that crop up in analyzing the presented case detail whether Google can manage its growth and whether Google should diversify beyond its present focus on advertising revenue. The paper explores ways in which Google can guarantee that it remains an entrepreneurial place, maintain rapid decision-making and international consistency, and avoid bureaucracy.
Google should maintain its policy of strongly believing that innovation can arise from any employee at any moment. As such, Google should organize the entire company to feature supportive and open environments that foster “unplanned” innovation and entrepreneurship. The call for rewarding entrepreneurial orientation for all employees is not misplaced given that the contemporary business world is fast-paced, complex, and uncertain. The high-velocity business environment demands innovations in strategy to render firms to be more adaptable and innovative and require fresh critical skills in employees (Groysberg, et. al., 2011).
According to its employees, Google has generated a culture that is high on trust, low on politics, well placed at sharing resources and wealth, and rich in meaning and significance. Google should continue creating value within its operations, products, and services. Building something that one is passionate about is also essential as it drives initiative; hence, Scott should give her employees space to be self-motivators in keeping their efforts to attain the set goals (Groysberg, et. al., 2011). This will enable employees to turn their energy to the company’s advantage. In order to realize its innovation potential, Google should continue stimulating all of its employees to think and act like entrepreneurs.
Google should continue being be more organic by being less rigid within its bureaucracy structure so as to limit “silo thinking.” The responsibilities of its employees should be continuously redefined to minimize turf issues cropping up. Google should continue recognizing individuals for their ideas and supporting them while they are working on their ideas and ideas should be valued over titles (Groysberg, et. al., 2011). One of the dominant concern that confront Google employees entail the possibility for “creeping bureaucracy” emanating from a rise in policies and guidelines demanded to manage an international company featuring over 17,000 employees.
The scale and form of innovation that an organization attains are directly linked to the manner it approaches, facilitates, selects, and funds the innovation efforts and the steps that it takes to keep bureaucracy at minimum. Google should ensure that all the significant decisions about the company and its future are arrived at under conditions of maximum practical inclusiveness and consultation (Groysberg, et. al., 2011).
Free plagiarism report (on demand)
Goggle employees are alive to the fact the fact that the consensus decision-making style could become challenging, especially in instances in which decisions need to be made across multiple locations. The lack of visibility within the company is also manifest with regard to replica of effort. It is critical that Scott continue constantly encouraging employees under her department to come up with fresh projects. This highlights the need for more transparency to all employees so as to eliminate all duplication of effort and embrace opinions from all employees (Groysberg, et. al., 2011). As a manager, Scott should not be reluctant to demonstrate how things ought to be done and should pursue long-consensus-building processes that allow one to think about decisions from diverse perspectives devoid of having long conversations. In doing so, the manager can possess tremendous range of making decisions.
Communication and consistency feature a prominent challenge to Google as it pursues its international expansion ambition. In hiring local people, Google has to aid in interpreting its culture for that location given that is may not be appropriate to export its corporate culture directly. As such, Google should pursue means of ensuring that it does not miss out on the distinct perspectives that flow from that region. As such employees have to highlight the suitable balance between cultural diversity and cultural homogeneity within its offices around the world (Groysberg, et. al., 2011).
To maintain rapid decision-making and international consistency, Google should keep bureaucracy to the minimum and continue pursuing externally and creating-oriented cultures that are externally oriented and that highlight differentiation within the marketplace. The differentiation, innovation, and creativity typified by the culture are critical to the sustenance of international consistency (Groysberg, et. al., 2011).
In order to continue propelling entrepreneurial activity, Google should eliminate potential barriers to organizational thinking and continue entrenching creativity given that creativity is the leader of global competitive advantage. In encouraging creativity, the Kim Scott should appreciate that creativity is messy, inefficient, and imprecise. As such, there is no formula that can be highlighted as guaranteeing the successful generation and implementation of creative ideas. Creativity may involve false starts, failures, and misfires; hence, Google should continue demonstrating its commitment towards creativity rather than fostering creativity when the entity has slack resources. As highlighted, it is essential that Kim Scott avoid issues that negatively impact on fast growing companies such as bureaucracy, lack of visibility, slow decision making, and international inconsistency. Google should stay committed to promoting a nourishing and supportive environment that recognizes people for their ideas, and supporting them while they are pursuing their ideas.