Googles dilemma - Case Study Example

Executive Summary: This paper is in response to the case “Google’s HR Dilemma”. The case is about the phenomenal success of Google and whether it canmaintain its growth without compromising on innovation. This paper looks at the case study and then makes some recommendations including a SWOT analysis based on the case and the data presented there.Introduction of the case: Google is a phenomenon in itself. It has completely redefined the way in which users browse the internet. Given that the internet is a loose collection of millions (or more) websites, a centralized search engine was the answer to finding relevant information quickly and easily.

When Larry Paige and Sergie Brian hit upon the idea in 1998, the concept of search engine was still vague. Thus, Google’s success lies in tapping the search engine space and as it grew exponentially; it had to evolve into some kind of structured organization if it had to maintain its astounding growth rate. Summary of the situation: The tile of the case about the “dilemma” faced by Google is how to motivate and energize its young staff while maintaining a semblance of formalized structures.

The key is to incubate new ideas in an organization while having some sort of bureaucratic structures in place to sustain its growth.SWOT The strength of Google is innovation and the workforce that prides itself on being “geeky” but resents formalized structures. Google derives its main strength from the way in which employees use their spare time to sound off on potential ideas that can be the “next big thing”. The weakness of Google lies in the way in which it is grappling with establishing formal governance structures.

This is a classic dilemma faced by many technology companies: How to grow without making the workforce feel that are part of an “impersonal” and “mechanical” organization. Google’s opportunity is the ever growing web applications market that has seen it grow at an annualized rate of around 30% over the last few years. The vitality and creativity of the workforce is another area of opportunity. Finally, the threat to Google is two-fold: potential start-ups like cuil.com that were started by ex-Google employees and can eat into its search engine market.

Second, the rising headcount that now stands at over 6,000 can make it a victim of its own success.Recommendations: it is recommended that Google’s management team inculcate a spirit of structure and formalized communication channels instead of the “college” atmosphere that pervades the company. Growing organizations have always felt the need to balance creativity with organization. And this is where the leadership of people like Schmidt comes into play. They have to make sure that everyone is aligned to the vision and mission of the company.

Google’s management team also has to manage the challenge of “scale” and ramping up the headcount. While size and scale are good for any company, they come at a price. And that is the feeling of bureaucracy. Thus, the adaptability of Google to these twin challenges remains the core of the recommended strategy.Conclusion: In conclusion, the point about companies disappearing of the Fortune 100 rankings every year is to be mentioned. One year you are there and a few years down the line, you are not.

Google is a byword for the internet and is used synonymously with the World Wide Web. Thus, it is in the interest of internet users and users of web applications that Google maintains its competitive edge. It is hoped that it indeed does so.