Introduction
Change in an organization is one of the riskiest things that a company can do. The change process involves alterations in the structure, operational methods, strategies, organizational culture or technologies and can either occur continuously or distinctly. A successful change in an organization will arise if stakeholders have a shared vision for change (Huczynski, Buchanan, & Huczynski, 2013). Most fundamentally, the company's top executive leadership must communicate the vision and ensure that the team appreciates the need for change. After initiating the process, the company must develop a concrete plan to measure the effectiveness of the change through follow-up plans. When reform is undertaken correctly, it can offer an organization a platform for future successes. Google is one of the biggest multinational technology corporations that specialize in a wide-range of internet services, software, and cloud computing amongst others. However, the company’s chief executive officer Larry Page decided to carry out an organizational change that involved breaking up Google into its constituent parts with each becoming its own company under an umbrella corporation known as Alphabet (Cusumano, 2017). Therefore, each company under Alphabet developed its unique goals with the CEO ensuring their implementation.
Towards the beginning of 21 st century, Google was already experiencing massive success. It dominated the world of internet through searches and made a mark on millions of its customers worldwide by provided products and services such as Gmail and Google Maps amongst others (Cusumano, 2017). Its research and development teams remained active in almost everything, attempting to change difficult projects into real prospects that could define the future of the company. Google as a company developed into a diverse entity. Although it seemed well connected, the reality was that it was becoming increasingly difficult to manage. In the early 2000s, the company had developed intertwining goals, and the coordination in various key areas such as teams, managers, and funds was becoming increasingly untenable. The company's CEO Larry Page became mindful of these difficulties and decided that it was time to embrace a change for the company's overall good. Following the splitting up of the company that saw it stand under Alphabet, Page noted: "Fundamentally, we believe this allows us more management scale, as we run things independently that aren't related” (Cusumano, 2017). Larry Page also asserted that although the change was radical, it was worth taking because of the prevailing conditions that could have derailed the company’s progress.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Analysis
Approach Taken By the Change Agent
Larry Page and his co-founder Sergei Brin fundamentally employed the Lewin's change model in revolutionizing the shape and image of Google. The Lewin's change management provides a useful platform for a company to undertake organizational and structural changes. The model consists of three vital steps that include unfreezing, change, and refreezing (Shirey, 2013). The unfreeze stage majorly deals with preparation towards the change; the organization not only prepares but appreciates the fact that change is needed in the organization. The importance of the step is to ensure that nobody resists the proposed changes. It also serves to explain to people the necessity of change and the profits that will come as a result. Shirey (2013) noted that the stage, therefore, involves an organization assessing its core and reexamining its position. As Google was growing by the day, it was becoming an increasingly difficult entity to manage. Page allowed everybody in the process of thinking before he launched the Alphabet as the parent organization. In fulfilling the process of unfreezing, he convinced the employees and stakeholders in the company that this move would ensure that they only concentrated on their mission without necessarily thinking about Google on a broader scale.
The next approach in the model taken by the agent was the change itself. It is the process where the actual transition occurs. In some instances, the process can be lengthy as people take much time to embrace developments, happenings, and changes. Larry Page and his co-founder practiced good leadership skills which made it easier for the employees to embrace the change. The change involved the formation of Alphabet as a consequence of breaking all the Google entities. Page became the CEO of the company with Brin taking the position of the company's president. Eric Schmidt, a long-term executive of Google, assumed the position of the Alphabet's new chairman. Each of the company under Alphabet developed its individual goals and focused on their attainment. Larry Page, in appreciating the change, asserted that "Alphabet is about business prospering through strong leaders and independence” (Lashinsky, 2017). He also acknowledged the various challenges that the company underwent during the change process when he intimated that “in the technology industry, where revolutionary ideas drive the next big growth areas, you need to be a bit uncomfortable to stay relevant” (Lashinsky, 2017).
The third step in the approach is refreezing. People accept the change, embrace it, and work towards its implementation. Shirey (2013) illustrated that the organization, therefore, regains its sense of stability once more. The employees are an essential entity in the refreezing process. As things begin to refreeze, employees take back their normal positions and routines in the new structure. The stability provides the employees with new confidence to embrace the changes and work towards fulfilling the organizational goals. The top executive members including the co-founders took their positions in the new outfit with employees enjoying a new sense of specialization in the Alphabet Company. The company's investors and shareholders also embraced the change as they saw it as a new way of marketing the company’s product that would ensure future investment is done uniformly across all the Alphabet’s entities.
The Image of the Type of Change Held by the Change Agent
Page and his counterpart Brin were the change agents that saw a revolution in Google Company. Huczynski, Buchanan, and Huczynski (2013) noted that change agents play a significant role in ensuring that every organization gains the much-needed impetus to attain its goals. Their primary responsibilities and duties include employing the appropriate change model by taking the necessary image to foster the proposed alterations to the company. Page and Brin took the approach of interpreters during the transition from Google to Alphabet. An interpreter works by creating or deciphering meaning for organizational members and assist them in making sense out of the proposed changes including the actions and events. Page spearheaded the process of interpretation where he convinced all the company’s stakeholders on the need to accept change and work towards its improvement. After noting that the company’s management process was having troubles with the recently earned success, the change was necessary to ensure that all the Google products and service gained autonomy as independent entities. Employers became aware that this would streamline their services due to increased specialization, while investors would have more transparency and visibility with regards to the use of their resources (Lashinsky, 2017).
The “Culture” Of the Setting That Is Changing and the Role Culture Played In the Change
The greatest asset to any organization is the people, and their beliefs, perspectives, customs, and attitudes make up the culture of an organization. The culture of an organization plays a significant role in various aspects including the change process. During the change implementation process, the three main players determine success include the ambiguity, complexity and the organizational culture. Culture includes certain critical assumptions that enhance the adaptation and integration. It also enables the stakeholders to feel, think, and perceive in the wake of the changes. Google has had a culture of appealing to its customers by providing the best internet, advertisement, and other technological services. The change was meant to increase customer interaction with some of the relatively unknown products by Google through enhancing a differentiation model under the umbrella company of Alphabet. The second organization culture that has defined Google as an organization is its tendency to remain transparent to its stakeholders and investors. The formation of the Alphabet would enable more visibility into its operations. Also, it was a sign of approval to the investors that the company was in a position to make more profits by exploring other markets.
First or Second Order vs. Adaptive or Transformational
Change in an organization can occur in several fashions. The nature of the changes can be first order, second order, adaptive, or transformational. However, the changes experienced in Google can be classified as second-order change and adaptive changes. In a second order change, the process involves creating a mechanism that enables things to be viewed differently. It needs new learning and further requires people to think, feel, and behave differently (Cummings, & Worley, 2014). The change can also be revolutionary and radical in nature. Page and Brin did not dissolve Google nor alter its operations but only introduced a new structure that would guarantee a new mode of operation. The change was also adaptive because the stakeholders were required to acclimatize to the new organizational culture. Employees now dealt with more specialized roles in the segmented Google products.
Methods of Implementing Change and the Vision
Google used two significant ways of implementing its change. First, it provided the rationale for change by creating a psychological climate that could foster the intended revolution amongst the key stakeholders. Cummings and Worley (2014) noted that an effective leader must provide change on impersonal grounds and ensure that it works to improve the benefit of all people. The Google co-founders Page and Brin ensured that all their stakeholders understood the need for change in the wake of the difficulties in management and the need to strengthen individual brands under the umbrella of Alphabet. It also used participation by consulting widely with its employees who were critical to the success of the change. The main idea communicated in the participation process was the need to prepare for the increased specialization where the emphasis will no longer be on Google as a whole but the affiliate products.
The vision of the Change and Communication
The change aimed at improving management through segmentation under an overall company name called Alphabet. Secondly, it sought to increase exposure of its vast array of brands to the customer base especially those which were relatively unknown by increasing independence. The third vision was to streamline the operations and provide visibility for investors. The company also aimed at reducing the antitrust scrutiny because the companies under Alphabet umbrella would make products to different industries. Lashinsky (2017) asserted that Page and Brin communicated the changes through a memorandum notifying all its affiliate company directors and employees.
Overall Evaluation
The overall evaluation was a success because they got many things right. Communication was spot on because Larry Page spearheaded the announcement and explained to the rest of the organization how this process would yield success and solve the ongoing managerial difficulties. The company also candidly outlined its visions and missions by asserting that it wanted more autonomy for the affiliate companies where each would have an opportunity to control its income and expenditure. The transition was radical and involved a risk of regression, but thanks to visionary leadership, the organizational structure took shape and yielded benefits to Google and its affiliate products and services.
Recommendations
The overall change process turned out a success. However, it was extremely radical and thus prone to mistakes and ruins that could have implicated in its competitive advantage and investor confidence. Therefore, one of the recommendations that they could have employed included formulating a strategic plan that defined their goals, missions, visions, and the length of the period. As such, this should have provided them a rationale of visualizing any shortcomings or disadvantage that the process would have before achieving the full change.
References
Cummings, T. G., & Worley, C. G. (2014). Organization development and change . Cengage Learning.
Cusumano, M. A. (2017). Is Google's Alphabet a Good Bet? Communications Of The ACM , 60 (1), 22-25. Doi: 10.1145/3018990
Huczynski, A., Buchanan, D. A., & Huczynski, A. A. (2013). Organizational behavior (p. 82). London: Pearson.
Lashinsky, A. (2017). ALPHABET'S GURU OF GOOGLEY RIGOR. Fortune , 176 (7), 35-37.
Shirey, M. R. (2013). Lewin’s theory of planned change as a strategic resource. Journal of Nursing Administration , 43 (2), 69-72.
