Strategic Decision Making
Order Instructions:
Leading Strategic Decision-Making
End of Module Coursework Assessment
This graded assessment accounts for 90% of your final grade and comprises two separate assessment exercises: Part A & Part B which are both weighted equally at 45% of your final grade.
You need to use this cover sheet for your assignment.
Part A
In Part A, we assess learning outcomes related to units 1, 2, 3, 7 & 10 by providing you with case study information on the leadership and strategic development processes which operate within the innovative context at Google.
The purpose of this brief is to provide you:
• Details of the coursework assessment: background to the case and questions
• Information on presentation and submission date.
• Guidelines to assist you in answering the questions
• The assessment marking criteria and feedback sheet for Part A.
Case Study Background & Questions
Read carefully the case information on Google which is contained in the following two sources:
1. Johnson G, Whittington R, & Scholes K (2011) Exploring Strategy, 9thedition, FT Prentice Hall, Chapter 12 Strategic Development Processes, page 426-428: Google: who drives the strategy?
(digitised copy available in unit 3 as prescribed reading)
2. Grant R (2013) Contemporary Strategy Analysis, 8thedition, John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Case Study 20 available online: Google Inc.: What’s the Corporate Strategy?
Both sources cover the strategic development of Google from start-up, to stock market listing (IPO), to market dominance in internet search. Source 2 finishes in early 2012 and updates developments beyond the end date of source 1 (2010). For example, we see in source 2 how Larry Page, one of the founders, replaces Eric Schmidt as CEO in 2011. Schmidt took up the post of Chairman of the company and would continue to act as an advisor to the founders, Larry Page and Sergey Brin.
Both sources provide insights into the leadership and management practices within Google. Source 1 places more emphasis on how this approach affects the strategic decision-making process (unit 3), whereas source 2 explores the content of its strategy, questioning its corporate level strategy (unit 1) and how it relates to its strategic direction and mission (unit 2).
Part A of your coursework assessment requires you to answer two questions:
Questions.
1. 1. Using the Ashridge Sense of Mission Model as a theoretical framework, analyse the case evidence on whether Google has achieved a sense of mission through its existing leadership.
2. In a famous interview Eric Schmidt Executive Chairman of Google stated that “We don’t really have a five-year plan.”
Based on this statement, critically discuss Google’s approach to strategic decision-making and consider to what extent you think their approach is transferable to organisations in other industry contexts.
Both questions are equally weighed and you should review how grading is allocated in the Coursework Feedback Sheet on page 4.
Presentation and Submission Date
The assessment in Part A is a case analysis and by completing many of the self-assessment exercises in the units, you are provided with an opportunity to improve your case analysis technique. You should note that case analysis is not a conceptual explanation or discussion but the application of concepts and frameworks to interpret the case information, analyse key events and statements, and reach evaluative judgements. The concepts and frameworks are covered in the module learning units and the guidance below gives you a few pointers on how you need to use this knowledge to answer the questions. In developing your analysis and arguments, you should use supporting evidence from the information contained in the case studies.
Your answers must only be derived from the information on Google contained in the two case study sources listed above. You are not required to consult other sources on Google or go beyond the end date of the second case study. The reason for this is that your analysis and evaluation is being assessed at this point in the organisation’s development and not in the light of subsequent events. As a result you should not include references on Google from the internet or other sources.
In terms of presentation, introduce each question indicating how you will structure your answer and conclude each answer with reference to your preceding arguments and the task required by the question. Do not present your answer in rigid report format but you may wish to divide your answer into sections which reflect the major elements of your analysis. The combined word count of your answers to both questions must comply with the following guidance:
Minimum Length: 2000 words
Maximum Length: 2500 words
Submission date: Friday 29th August 2014, 11.59 pm (UK time)
The word limit excludes appendices and bibliography. Where a submission exceeds the stated word limit the maximum grade awarded will be P1. Appendices can be useful to provide additional information from your analysis but you must incorporate the key analytical arguments into the main body of your answer.
Guidance Notes
The assessment feedback sheet at the end of this section gives the marking criteria for the overall case analysis. Remember, in writing your solution to the questions you must not describe what the case says but use the concepts to analyse the information and use the evidence/facts in the case to support your analysis.
Question 1 asks you to discuss the mission and leadership approach at Google in order to evaluate how it achieves a sense of mission. The question specifically asks you to use the Ashridge Sense of Mission model which is part of your prescribed reading for unit 2. The elements of strategic leadership and the differences between transactional and transformational approaches are included in unit 1 and you should be able to relate these to the innovative context at Google (unit 7).
Specifically you should apply and discuss the four elements of mission (Ashridge model) to Google. When considering purpose and strategy, you should evaluate the issues raised in case source 2 on questions surrounding Google’s corporate level strategy and “identity”. In doing this avoid being overly descriptive of the content of Google’s strategy as you will soon exceed the word limit. Attempt to develop arguments and, if necessary, include supporting details in appendices. You must also address the central issue in the question of how the fifth element, a sense of mission, is achieved through the alignment of the employees’ personal values with those of the organisation. In doing this, consider the role played by the leadership and management approach at Google to integrate the elements of mission, especially the behavioural standards and values of the organisation, with those of the employee.
To answer question 2 you will draw on your learning from unit 3 on strategic decision-making and your prescribed reading from Johnson et al, chapter 12. You will need to examine the leadership of the company based on both cases and how decisions are taken then relate these to the major approaches, especially planned and incremental, to develop arguments and reach conclusions on how strategic decision-making is practised in Google. Once you have identified its approach with supporting evidence, you should discuss the advantages and disadvantages of this approach as part of your critical assessment. To consider whether their approach is transferable you will need to discuss the extent to which it is contextually specific to Google.
Part A
Coursework Assessment Feedback
Matriculation No. Date of Submission:
Module: Leading Strategic Decision-Making
Part A: Google Case Study Cohort:
Category Comment
Presentation of analysis, use of appropriate concepts, and depth of understanding of the issues raised in the case.
(10%)
Evaluation of Google’s mission and how it achieves a sense of mission through its approach to leadership and management.
(35%)
Critically assessment of Google’s approach to strategic decision-making practised at Google and its potential transferability to other organisations.
(35%)
Ability to reach coherent and logical arguments from the analysis, supported by case evidence.
(20%)
General Comments:
Overall Grade: Marker:
N.B. the percentages are shown as indications of the relative importance of each section and should not be taken as a precise indication of the marking scheme.
SAMPLE ANSWER
Strategic Decision Making
Question 1
A strong mission exists where the four components of Ashridge Sense of Mission Model reinforce each other. These include purpose, strategy, values and behaviours; all which must be successfully managed by strategic leaders in order to achieve the organisation’s mission. In this discussion, the Ashridge Sense of Mission Model is used to analyse Google to establish whether its sense of mission has been achieved through the existing leadership.
Purpose defines the sole existence of an organization and is considered an essential part of the organisation’s mission (Campbell and Yeung, 1991). Strategic leaders seek to maximize shareholder value and stakeholder value through providing desired products and services to clients while creating returns for the shareholders. Google’s main purpose is to make internet search as convenient for users as possible through providing information, links and well developed content. Through well calculated leadership strategy, Google’s management has succeeded in developing the best search engine in the world; enabling users to access all forms of information online. However, Google has significantly deviated from its main purpose and invested in other projects including software development and telecommunication. This raises questions about its mission and based on this element of the Ashridge Sense of Mission Model, Google’s mission cannot be effectively assessed because it fails in accurately defining its purpose.
Strategy represents the tactics that a company uses to enhance its competitiveness in the market and derive value for its stakeholders and shareholders. In assessing an organisation’s mission, strategy is informed by purpose and is responsible for defining behaviour within the organisation. Google’s strategy is to let employees lead innovation. This has worked well for the organisation and leaders seek to intervene as little as possible; only taking a motivational role. This denotes the concept of transformational leadership which essentially drives motivation by promoting personal and professional growth. According to Volberda et al (2011), transformational leadership promotes innovation and creativity and in most cases yields a successful organisation. Transformation leadership must be accompanied by mission awareness in order to derive success.
Values define the beliefs, moral principles and expectations that constitute the company’s culture (Campbell and Yeung, 1991). They give direction and define what is right in the organisational setting. At Google, creativity and innovation, teamwork, dedication to work and attention to consumer needs inform its mission of providing the best products for its users. Based on this element, it can be established that Google is on track as far as its mission is concerned; given its values are well embedded in the organisational culture.
Unless purpose and strategy are implemented, they are merely intellectual thoughts; and having a policy and behaviour guidelines to guide everyday activities is therefore imperative (Campbell and Yeung, 1991). Behaviours at Google including teamwork and cooperation are deeply ingrained into the organisation’s culture. Individuals work in groups and brainstorming has played a great role in the generation and critique of ideas; thus creating innovative products. This illustrates that Google’s mission is reflected in the organisation’s behaviour
The fifth element in the model is the ‘sense of mission’, which basically the importance of individual values being matched with the organisation’s values. This calls for well calculated recruitment procedures to ensure that the identified employees are committed towards delivering the organisation’s mission and objectives. In addition, it calls on organizations to ensure employee engagement and motivation to assure their commitment to the organisation’s mission. Volberda et al (2011), note that strategic leaders effectively accomplish commitment to the vision and mission of the organization by aligning the employee and organizational goals.
Google seeks to recruit only highly qualified individuals who are not only capable of doing the job but also passionate about innovation. Google is highly rigid and extremely choosy when it comes to recruitment and all employees must pass through a series of interviews and assessment besides being qualified in terms of educational background to ensure that the selected individuals will bring in great ideas and high quality work. This ties the organisation’s mission of being the leading search engine company with the employees’ desire to accomplish through developing highly innovative ideas to drive the organisation’s growth. It is therefore justified to state that Google has achieved a sense of mission through its existing leadership.
In terms of employee engagement and motivation, Google seeks to empower employees to realize their potential by giving them discretion to make important decisions. The remuneration and benefits package at Google is also very attractive and employees are given the opportunity to use a proportion of their time to pursue their own interests. This makes Google a attractive environment to work in and consequently employees can work towards achieving the organisation’s mission.
Question 2
“Failing to plan is planning to fail” is a common saying depicting the need for organizations to make both long-term and short-term plans to guide the organisation’s strategy. A plan not only gives direction but also ensures that all important aspects of the strategy are met (Johnson, Gerry and Scholes, 2011). Based on these propositions therefore, Google’s strategic approach may be considered a deviation from the norm; leading to questions on whether an organization could actually succeed without a solid plan. This is a discussion on Google’s approach to strategic decision making and the possibility of transferring this approach to organisations in other industries. It includes a discussion on the advantages and disadvantages of an incremental approach to decision making that Google adopts as opposed to a planned approach.
The Executive Chairman of Google, Eric Schmidt, during a famous interview categorically states that the organization has no five-year plan. This symbolises an approach to decision making that is unplanned and open for any ideas that come along. Google’s approach can be explained by the nature of the industry which calls for the organization to be constantly on the look-out for new social and technological trends, new forms of demand and possible innovations to enhance user experiences. Having a rigid plan therefore restricts the organisation from exploring new possibilities; yet Google seeks to stretch the imagination and innovation of its staff to create new ideas as much as possible. Theirs can be considered an incremental approach to decision making as opposed to a planned approach.
There are various advantages associated with the incremental approach to decision making. To begin with, the incremental approach is known to be highly successful in the modern day dynamic environment where customer needs are constantly changing. It allows for flexibility in adjusting plans unlike in formal and planned decision making approach where so much time may be required to plan for unexpected changes thus rendering plans obsolete. In the ever evolving web-based business, the more flexible and the faster the organisation can respond to changing consumer demands, the more successful it is likely to be. Google believes in rapid response as opposed to planning.
Incremental approach creates a learning organisation culture that stifles knowledge and creativity within the organisation (Johnson, Gerry and Scholes, 2011). Google gives its employees the freedom to explore new possibilities and the management tries as hard as possible not to take a lead role in developing new ideas. Failures are taken positively and used to fuel future developments. This has ensured that it can develop user friendly products and thus take a leading role in the industry.
Organisations may be more effective if business strategy is based on learning and an incremental approach leaves room for learning. This happens where the incremental approach is utilised and products are developed based on continuous research The incremental approach to decision making explains why Google is not ashamed to declare its failures and proudly withdraw products which are seen not to be working well. Failure is seen as success because it gives the company direction as far as making better and more useful products is concerned. In the case of a planned approach, time and resource wastage is likely to occur because it leaves no room for flexibility.
Grant (2013), in the case of Kodak note that the incremental approach worked for the company because it allowed it to gradually move from the traditional to digital imaging and thus maintained its competitive advantage. Google in the same way must approach web evolution as a process; where the ability to produce user friendly products is based on continuous research and market studies.
Using the incremental approach saves a significant amount of resources because plans are made and implemented in small steps; such that it is easy to identify ideas that are not working and hence eliminate them before investing too much on them. Google often rolls out half-finished products and waits for user critique and ideas. This not only gives the organisation an opportunity to establish what the user wants but it is also a learning opportunity and a chance to utilise end users for the company’s gain.
The incremental approach has its own disadvantages and may not always be as effective. It is highly unpredictable unlike planned decision making and the chances of making uncalculated moves are increased. Google for example has to keep withdrawing products that were initially thought to be appealing because they did not meet the intended purpose. Secondly, incremental approach to decision making may slow down organisational procedures because unlike planned decision making, there is no guide to how decisions are made. Conflicts may arise due to differences in opinions and this makes it unfavourable especially in large organisations. Thirdly, incremental decision making approach is highly volatile and unpredictable. This is unlike planned decision making which is known for consistent results because it is well thought of, planned and evaluated before it can be adopted; which makes it highly reliable.
The incremental approach to decision making emerges as an effective approach and other organisations that seek to emulate Google would stand to gain from the flexibility of this approach and its ability to yield successful results. However, not every organisation can successfully adopt this approach unless it is dealing with an uncertain environment such as the technology market; where general goals exist as in the case of new organisations where precise objectives have not been set; where experimentation is necessary as managers seek to establish best strategy; and where there is need to coordinate emergent strategies. Organisations adopting the incremental approach must be willing to invest in research and be ready to undertake risks. As in the case of Google, a company is at a risk of losing financially when projects that do not meet intended purposes following research and trials have to be eliminated
References
Campbell, Andrew & Yeung, Sally, (1991) “Creating a sense of mission” from Long Range Planning. London: Pergamon Press
Grant, Robert M. (2013). Contemporary Strategy Analysis. Edinburgh, Scotland: CAPDM Limited.
Johnson, Gerry; Whittington, R. & Scholes, K., (2011) “Chapter 12 : Strategy development processes” from Johnson, Gerry; Whittington, R. & Scholes, K., Exploring strategy [tex & cases] pp.396-428, Harlow: FT Prentice Hall
Tidd, J. & Bessant, J. (2013). Managing Innovation: Integrating Technological, Market and Organizational Change. Edinburgh, Scotland: CAPDM Limited.
Volberda H. W, Morgan R. E, Reinmoeller, Patrick, Hitt, M.A, Ireland R.D, Hoskisson R. E, (2011) “Chapter 11 : Strategic leadership” from Volberda H.
W, Morgan R. E, Reinmoeller, Patrick, Hitt, M.A, Ireland R.D, Hoskisson R. E, Strategic management: competitiveness and globalization : concepts and cases pp.398-434, Andover: South-Western Cengage Learning
We can write this or a similar paper for you! Simply fill the order form!
