Leading Strategic Decision Making

Leading Strategic Decision Making

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.

Strategic Decision Making

STRATEGIC DECISION MAKING 2
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

STRATEGIC DECISION MAKING 3
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

STRATEGIC DECISION MAKING 4
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

STRATEGIC DECISION MAKING 5
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

STRATEGIC DECISION MAKING 6
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