Google Inc. in China - Case Study Example

Case Study: Google, Inc., In China I – The Pre-Analysis A: Perspective 1. The perspective of the author(s) of the case study and possible biases that might result from that perspective The author of the case study is an American Professor Kristen E. Martin. He has been associated with American universities for several years. The main purpose of preparing the case study is to stimulate the classroom discussions and there are some fictional characters are also added to the case study. The case study is not directly aimed at discussing the effectiveness or non-effectiveness of the business decision making. The case study is focused upon US based company Google, Inc. in China. Being an American, the perspective of the author could be biased because he might have certain views about China and its relationship with America that would have certainly affect his analysis and description of the facts. There is a possibility that he has viewed the entire issue from the American perspective and not as a third or neutral party. 2. My perspective as the analyst: My analysis of the case study is also likely to be affected from my educational background and work experience. I have been studied and working in United States and I am a regular user of Google, Inc. I use the search engine almost every day and most of the times; I found that the research results generated from the engine are accurate and helpful. Due to this reason, I already have a soft corner for Google, Inc. that is likely to generate a favorable response for Google in my analysis of the case. However, I am aware that in order to present a credible analysis of the case, I have to put my influences and biasness at a side and have to conduct an impartial and unbiased analysis of the case. B. Bracketing For many years I am a regular user of Google services and so far I have never been disappointed by the accuracy and facilities offered by Google, Inc. Due to this fact, I have positive views about Google however, as far as the analysis of this case is concerned, I will not make a bias analysis on the basis of my personal likeness and attachment with the company. II – The Situational Thesis A: Facts relevant to the Issue The case basically evolved due to the problem that the Chinese government has put restraints upon the material upon certain subjects like security risk subjects, material violating principles set forth by the Chinese constitution, material against the integrity and unity of the nation, pornography, rumors or material promoting any unlawful act. Google, Inc. has done long strategic planning to launch Google.cn, however their filters were not able to sensor certain material and information that has banned by the Chinese government. This issue turned in to the conflicting situation. The administration of Google, Inc. believes that the launch of google.cn is beneficial for the Chinese users and the company will be able to provide better and efficient services to the Chinese users. They have done adequate homework for the launch and the director of Google international business MacLean had also spent lot of time and efforts to prepare the background for google.cn. The conflict rose from the issue of self-censorship was great point of disappointment for the management of Google because when they announced their plan to launch google.cn in 2006, it was subjected to the filtration and permission of the Chinese government. B: Historical Perspective relevant to the issue Google has been operating as most popular internet search engine for several years. It was founded by Larry Page and Sergey Brin in 1996. It hosts and develops several important and popular web-based services and programs. In 2002, the Chinese language version of Google was launched to facilitate the Chinese users and in 2006, the corporation announced its intentions to create google.cn in order to provide refined and fast search engine service to the internet users in China. The use of internet and Google as top search engine is popular in china also however; the Chinese government has enacted certain strict policies regarding the filtration of the material accessible through internet. The Chinese government uses to monitor the contents as well as the recipients of the information to avoid the chances of security lapse and national integrity disruption through the propagation of restricted material. The Chinese ministry of public security has also established 300,000 internet police to assure the proper implementation of Chinese censorship laws on internet. C: Biased Quotations There are certain quotations found in the case study where the author has not provided complete evidences and has tried to establish the facts without backing up those through proper evidences. For instance, the author deems Google as most popular search engine of the world and there are no evidences provided to prove this fact. Some other biased quotations also impart strong appraisal about Google, Inc. III – The analysis 1. Involved Parties The main parties involved in the conflict include founders of Google, Inc., its managing director MacLean, the major competitors of Google including Yahoo, and Microsoft Corporation, the Chinese government, citizens, internet users, ministry of public safety, Chinese telecom department and China internet police. 2. Process of Conflict Resolution In order to resolve the conflict, Google, Inc. followed an adequate process of conflict resolution. The management decided to follow the rules and restrictions enacted by the Chinese government to filter the contents provided by Google. In order to comply with the Chinese laws, Google programmed its engine accordingly and removed the banned contents from google.cn. 3. Constraints upon decision making The management of Google, Inc. had done detailed background work for the launch of google.cn and any restriction imposed by the Chinese government was great setback for them. In order to remain align with the local Chinese laws and censorship rules, Google had to remove some of the contents that was against main motto of the corporation. Google expressed the mission to provide complete information to the users and if some users become unable to access some sites, it would be inconsistent with the service provision mission of the company. Thus, the main constraint upon the decision making was to compromise over the company’s mission to provide the users with fast and complete information. 4. Chance event role Chance event basically refers to something that appears all of a sudden without prior expectations (Carroll et al, 2009). In this case, all the event followed each other after well planned decisions and background work conducted by the parties and there are no evidences or events found that the chance events plays any role in deciding any direction for the parties in this case. 5. Conflicting values among participants The main conflicting value among the participants was the censorship policies implemented by the Chinese government. Google want to provide the users with complete contents at fast speed without filtration in order to maximize its profit. On the other hand, the Chinese government was more concerned about the filtration of the searched material rather speed and completeness of the contents. Google was not a favor of strict filtration of the material because it not only causes the slow speed searching but also provides the users incomplete information. However, Chinese government clarified that they give priority to their rules and regulations. 6. Irrational Influence upon decision making The decision making of Google was mainly influenced by the rules and censorship policies of Chinese government that should not be considered as irrational because they have developed their policies to secure the nation from negative impact of certain contents. Thus, it could not be regarded as irrational influence because it is quite logical to comply with the local rules and laws while operating in any country, 7. Long term and short term goals affected by decision The decision of Google to filter contents to block the restricted material likely to have obvious impact upon the achievement of long term and short term goals of the company in china. The long term goal of Google in china was to become part of the flourishing economy of the country and this goal is supported by the decision because by complying with the Chinese laws, the company made it easy for itself to survive in China. However, Google has to compromise over some of the short term goals. For instance, the speed of searching is affected due to the filtration of banner contents but Google had to bear it in order to remain align with the Chinese internet laws. Overall, the decision making draw positive impacts upon the achievement of long term goals of Google in china whereas some of the short term goals were not completely achieved. 8. Unexamined presuppositions The decision has been taken after careful review of all the aspects of the issues however; the decision makers have to overlook some of the suppositions in order to proceed towards their journey in China. Google used to express that it intends to provide users with fast access to complete information but in this case, they overlook this mission and accept the filtration of banned material that not only affected the speed but also made certain contents unavailable to the users in China. B: Organizational Analysis 1. effectiveness, efficiency, efficacy (a) Actions under analysis were necessary for Effectiveness, Efficiency and Efficacy The action taken by Google was very necessary for the effectiveness, efficiency and efficacy of the organization because if the management of Google will not take the decision to comply with the rules and regulations of the Chinese government, they would not be allowed to operate in the country. It will badly affect their planning and progression in the region and will also draw negative impacts upon the goodwill and image of the company and would give the impression that Google has no value for the rules and policies of the local governments and they just look for their own profitability. Thus, it was imperative to take the decision of aligning with Chinese laws while compromising over some own basic principles because without this compromise, it would be impossible for the company to continue its operations in the country and obviously the efficiency, effectiveness and efficacy would also be massively harmed. (b) Action increase the effectiveness, efficiency and efficacy The decision of Google to comply with the Chinese rules and restriction increased the effectiveness, efficiency and efficacy of the organization because only by making this decision, it becomes possible for Google to operate in China. The decision to follow the own principles and overlooking at the Chinese law, would be very harmful for the company because it would be no longer able to continue its operations in China. Through this decision, Google succeed to grab market share in China and it succeed to maintain its operations in the country with the hope of grapping high profits. However, the question of achievement of long term goals would be clarified after some years when the market position and share of Google in China will be evaluated. The decision expressed the intention of Google to compromise and gave away positive signs to Chinese government after which the launch of google.cn became possible. 2. Risks (a) Risk at optimal level at the time of decision There were certain risks involved with the actions under analysis that surround the company at the time of taking the action. There were possibilities to having unfavorable response from the stakeholders that might question the credibility of the company due to its compromise over its basic principles (b) Risk at optimal level following the decision Risks are also at optimal level for Google following the action under analysis because the Chinese users might complaint about the slow speed of the search engine and they could also raise questions due to unavailability of complete information through the site. C: Societal Analysis The position of Google became quite clear in the entire scenario that it was restricted by the Chinese government to filter the contents for the sake of continual of its operations in China. The disclosure of these facts put lot of pressure upon the Chinese government and the US government also started perusing China to allow its citizen complete access of the information rather enacting strict restrictions. IV – Most important relevant issue Is it justified that Chinese government has created strict rules and regulations to monitor the flow of information to its citizen via internet? Is it ethical for Chinese government to ask Google filtering its contents as it strongly affect their business practice? Is it right for Google to enter Chinese market even at the cost of compromising over their basic business principle? V- Analyst’s position The action taken by Google to comply with Chinese government policies is quite sensible decision because every country and every government have their own philosophies and policies to protect the integrity of their nation and minimize the security risks. China might be considered striker then some other countries, but it is not Google’s job to question the strictness of the government and it is their better decision to comply with the rules rather interfering in their business. There are certain evidences that support this standpoint. Google will not be able to launch google.cn if would declare not to follow Chinese rules and it will draw strong negative impacts upon its global image as well as profitability because it will give an impression that Google might go against the government just for the sake of their own principles and they have to value for the local laws. In other countries also, this impression will damage the image of the company and thus, it is the best decision taken by the Google, Inc. to take actions for alignment with Chinese laws. References Carroll, Archie B., and Ann K. Buchholtz (2009), Business and Society: Ethics and Stakeholder Management (7th edition) Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning Martin, K.E. (2006), Google, Inc. in China, Case BRI-1004, Institute for Corporate Ethics Read More