TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER TWO: DRIVERS OF GOOGLE’S CHANGE 8
Table 1: Specific Drivers of Change for Google. 8
CHAPTER ONE: ORGANISATION STRUCTURE, CULTURE, AND BEHAVIOUR OF GOOGLE AND INDIA TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION.
1.1 Introduction
The below-mentioned report explains the difference between the composition of a multinational organization like Google with the structure of a domestic organization like India Tourism Development Corporation. The first section of the report elaborates details about the structural and cultural differences present between both the types of organization and its impact on the employees as well. Further, the second chapter of this report clearly describes facts concerning the drivers of change present for multinational organizations. Elaboration on few drivers affecting the functions of the company and impacting their decision-making process is conducted below:
1.2 Similarities and Differences in Structure, Culture, and Behaviour between Google and India Tourism Development Corporation.
1.2.1 Introduction
Two organizations given for the analysis are Google as the multinational organization and India Tourism Development Corporation as a public sector organization. Both the given organizations are present in different segments of business structure; therefore, they enjoy various benefits in the environment. On the other hand, M.N.C.s gain the advantage to obtain the market opportunity and earn additional profitability. At the same time, public sector organization works in favor of helping the people in the society. The structure and compositions of both organizations are different, which makes them grow in different ways (Hartini, Fakhrorazi & Islam: 215). Below mentioned are some of the similarities and differences between Google and India Tourism Development Corporation;
1.2.2 Similarities
Both the organizations consist of four main stakeholders. India Tourism Development Corporation consists of four directors with whom two are officials, while two are functional directors. Furthermore, one of the directors who is a government appointee is the chairperson and managing director (Singh &Ratandeep: 65). Google has four vital board members and includes; Larry Page, Co-Founder, Director, and Chief Executive Officer of Alphabet (Borodai 2017:34).
Both organizations have many shareholders. Google’s top ten owners of Alphabet Inc. include the Vanguard Group Inc. with a shareholding metric of 7.35% amounting to 22,046,441 shares held and BlackRock Fund Advisors, which has a parameter of 4.4% accounting for 13,317,686. India Tourism Development Corporation (I.T.D.C.) is majorly government-owned with a metric of 89.97%, while 10% is owned by the general public and the 0.03% owned by employees (Mahajan 1983:4).
1.2.3 Differences
The public sector organization of India Tourism Development Corporation is composed of the board of directors, officers, employees, and shareholders who are the organization’s owners. The organization works under the Government of India’s supervision, which presents stakeholders as a vital segment of the organization. The company works intending to satisfy the shareholders by providing excellent services to them (Mahajan 1983:4). On the other hand, Google is making use of cross-functional organizational structure to keep the business aligned (Ollier-Malaterre & Foucreault: 111).
The primary goal of Google is making profits and expanding its market share through the maximum use of the cross-functional structure of management that employs segregation of various departments and making them independent (Alvesson:2012). Unlike India Tourism Development Corporation which operates a vertical organizational structure which allows all departments to be separate while relying on the C.E.O. as a crucial decision-maker in some objectives. Furthermore, the company’s primary goal is to satisfy its final users as well as shareholders, unlike Google (Damoori, Almodarresi&Jafari: 2020).
Regarding the aspects of culture, Google provides a wide range of benefits to its employees, resulting in employee satisfaction. Additionally, the organizational culture of Google is the corporate type that grants emphasis to change as well as direct linkages within the firm. The culture entails open sharing, innovation, doing, and a small family within the company (Borodai 2017:34).On the contrary, the organizational culture of I.T.D.C. is embedded with strictness, and employees do not get additional benefits. Furthermore, salaries are limited, and the work culture is rigid and old-fashioned (Ashraf & Uddin: 18).
I.T.D.C. remains unchanged regarding its environment due to employees feeling disgusted while working in such a situation. In spite, even if the company gets talented employees, then also the organization is unable to maximize its potential due to repeated work in the organization resulting in little growth (Ashraf & Uddin: 30). On the contrary, the growth opportunity is better in Google and the presence of equality in the company’s environment. Thus, it can be said that the culture of Google provides a better quality of life to people, and the culture of India Tourism Development Corporation has only one benefit. The benefit is in relation to job security which is also slowly reducing with time with the development of Indian governmental policies (Sheedy & Griffin:4).
People prefer working for public organization because they provide safety. The India Tourism Development Corporation provides a pension scheme and fixed-job that can be transferable to another family member. However, the culture of public enterprise is slowly changing, but the environment is mainly old and involves less innovation (Singla& Singh: 159). On the opposite, some people prefer working with Google due to a better salary rather than security. Job sharing opportunities, learning, flexible working hours, and high pay-scale are benefits of working at Google. Furthermore, the employees are high-skilled and believe in growing by learning new things in the workplace environment; the Google environment works by adapting to changes to attract more new talent in the business environment (Onyango 2017:353).
As a multinational organization, Google works in the international environment where thousands of employees work together while in India’s Tourism Development Corporation operates in the domestic environment and employee-only natives of the country. One reason that multinational organization grows faster than public organization is because it makes use of innovation and understands its customers’ behavior. While on the other hand, domestics companies do not give enough importance to the customers’ requirements even if they work for them. Unlike Google, there is a presence of bureaucracy and red-tapism in the system that makes the functioning of slow and rigid (Singla & Singh: 159).
Thus, it can be said that multinational companies provide better opportunities to people and grow with a better speed as well. India Tourism Development Corporation could not supply better growth opportunities to people as it is formed and functioned by a governmental body, which reduces the efficiency of the decision-making process. Lack of growth and innovation in the system reduces the interest of millennials in such jobs. The structure is rigid and convoluted; there is a lack of power in the formation of India Tourism Development Corporation as the senior authorities need to seek the guidance of the government in making crucial decisions for the public. However, this fact is actually that the decisions of India Tourism Development Corporation always support the people of the nation and provide the benefits. At the same time, the choices of M.N.C.s are taken to develop their position in the international market (Nicholson & Orr:269).
1.3 Impacts that Organisation Structure and Culture have on Google’s and India Tourism Development Corporation’s Performance.
1.3.1 Introduction
The company’s culture and structure are the two most important factors that affect the internal workplace, impacting the sustainability and prowess of an organization. The behavior of the employees is directly influenced by the culture in which they prevail. Therefore, it can be rightly said that the structure of the organization and its culture lays great emphasis on the methods with which leaders, administrators, and employees work in the company.
1.3.2 Impacts
Google is achieving faster growth due to its provision of a flexible working environment and space to its employees. This creates an independent working of employees as well as maximum individual in-put. While on the other hand, as mentioned above, the environment of India Tourism Development Corporation is rigid for the employees to handle; hence they only do clerical work for which they are paid. Consequently, results in low individual input therefore, little growth experienced. It should be noted that the business structure gives insights about the company’s growth prospects. The organizational structure lets the employees understand the hierarchical culture through which they grow in the business environment (Roberts: 2018).
A clear and straight forward organizational structure lets the employees motivate themselves to reach a higher level. Google employees who work effectively get better promotions in the business environment as the company’s top-level management evaluates every person’s growth around the year. However, in the case of I.T.D.C., the top-level management does not show enough interest in the employees’ efforts that they put in the job, resulting in which the employees also get disinterested in the company (Fish et al., 2016). There is the presence of an ineffective organizational structure as the government governs the organization. Consequently, the government does monitor work done by the manager, leaders, and the employees once in a year or when any problem arises. Additionally, the employees are not appreciated or promoted if they put additional efforts in the public sector organization. They work based on standard requirements only (Tratalos et al.,:63).
Further, it should be noted that the organizational structure and culture go hand in hand in a multinational organization like Google. The top-level management keeps on motivating the employees regularly to make full use of the resources available to them. Continuous monitoring helps the employees to analyze their attractive features and gain a competitive advantage in the business environment. However, in the case of a public sector enterprise like India Tourism Development Corporation, the top management does not care about the employees, as they only want to enjoy and leverage their position (Blanco-Portela, et. Al.:2017). Thus, many times in public organization, the top-level management presents the proposal of growth to the government as if it is their ideas which subsequently frustrate the employees.
CHAPTER TWO: DRIVERS OF GOOGLE’S CHANGE
Table 1: Specific Drivers of Change for Google.
| Political | The operations of Google especially market wisely are determined by various government policies and activities that shape the profit level, revenue accrued, and market share of the company across the world. |
| Economic | The profit level of Google is majorly determined by the economic factors which function to influence the customer demand base and usage of Google services, especially the willingness to make payments for the various online services offered by the company. |
| Social | The social factors influence the performance of Google in the global market since they impact people’s perception of behavioral practice in Google’s advertisements online, resulting in a growing diversity of those using online services. |
| Technological | Technological factors can uphold or break businesses operating using technology, resulting in a rising number of the internet accessibility, especially among developing nations. |
| Environmental | Ecological trends impact on the direction of businesses strategically especially companies using the cloud computer-based service sector and can result in continued rising support for ecological mentalism. |
| Legal | The regulatory measure’s impact on what firms are capable of doing especially regarding online services with interest in the privacy of customer information. An example is rising regulations on privacy while online. |
Technology:
Google being an I.T. company is highly influenced by the technological factors prevailing in the nation. Better availability of technology provides better chances for the company to grow. The organization works to make use of technology to satisfy the demand of the international market at large. Technology is one of the biggest change drivers for the organization because it helps them to introduce new features in the growth business. Lack of technology could make the organization fall in the competitive environment (Benn 2016:175) hence the need advanced technology for growth.
Social:
Google is affected by social factors of individual countries. The people of the U.K. are interested in making use of technology regularly due to which the company attains the opportunity to grow. However, considering the older population, the company needs to make use of technology and present it to the customers in such a way that all age group people can use it easily (Král & Králová 2016:5169).
CONCLUSION
Thus, analyzing and concluding the aforementioned answers, it should be noted that the structure of the organization highly affects their business strategies and the interest of employees as well. The structure defines the culture and the culture further defines the impression of employees for the organization. Thus, it is seen that the culture of a multinational organization is better than a national organization. Further, several trends dislocate the position of the company. The P.E.S.T.E.L. analysis helps Google to analyze those key drivers of change in the market.
References
Alvesson, M. (2012). Understanding Organizational Culture. Sage.
Ashraf, J. and Uddin, S., 2016. New public management, cost savings and regressive effects: A case from a less developed country. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 41, pp.18-33.
Benn, S.H., 2016. The drivers of change. Corporate Behavior and Sustainability: Doing Well by Being Good, p.175.
Blanco-Portela, N., Benayas, J., Pertierra, L.R. and Lozano, R., 2017. Towards the integration of sustainability in higher education institutions: a review of drivers of and barriers to organiZational change and their comparison against those found of companies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 166, pp.563-578.
Borodai, V.(2017). Brand of the employer as D.N.A. of the corporate culture of Service Company. European Research, 2(1), 34-35.
Fish, R., Church, A., Willis, C., Winter, M., Tratalos, J.A., Haines-Young, R. and Potschin, M., 2016. Making space for cultural ecosystem services: Insights from a study of the U.K. nature improvement initiative. Ecosystem Services, 21, pp.329-343.
Hartini, H., Fakhrorazi, A. and Islam, R., 2019. The Effects Of Cultural Intelligence On Task Performance And Contextual Performance: An Empirical Study On Public Sector Employees In Malaysia. Humanities & Social Sciences Reviews, 7(1), pp.215-227.
Král, P. and Králová, V., 2016. Approaches to changing organizational structure: The effect of drivers and communication. Journal of Business Research, 69(11), pp.5169-5174.
Mahajan, L.C., India Beckoning to one and all: PIB, Government of India, January 14, 1983, p. 4
Maiorescu, R. and Wrigley, B., 2016. Diversity in multinational corporations. U.K.: Routledge.
Nicholson, J. and Orr, K., 2016. Local government partnership working: a space odyssey. Or, journeys through the dilemmas of public and private sector boundary-spanning actors. Policy & Politics, 44(2), pp.269-287.
Ollier-Malaterre, A. and Foucault, A., 2017. Cross-national work-life research: Cultural and structural impacts for individuals and organizations. Journal of Management, 43(1), pp.111-136.
Onyango, G., 2017. Collectivism and reporting of organizational wrongdoing in public organizations: the case of county administration in Kenya. International Review of Sociology, 27(2), pp.353-372.
Roberts, J., 2018. Multinational business service firms: development of multinational organization structures in the U.K. business service sector. U.K.: Routledge.
Sheedy, E. and Griffin, B., 2018. Risk governance, structures, culture, and behaviour: A view from the inside. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 26(1), pp.4-22.
Singh, Ratandeep, Infrastructure of Tourism India, Kaniksha Publishers, Distributors, New Delhi.
Singla, M. and Singh, S., 2018. Impact of institutional set-up on the responsiveness to changes in a firm’s governance structure: A comparative study of public and private sector enterprises in India. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 19(2), pp.159-172.
Wood, W., 2019. Drivers for Change. In Migrating to MariaDB (pp. 1-14). Apress, Berkeley, CA.