Running Head DIAGNOSING THE CHANGE DIAGNOSING THE C.docx

Running Head: DIAGNOSING THE CHANGE
DIAGNOSING THE CHANGE
Diagnosing the Change
Within Google and YouTube Using the Star Model
Abstract
This paper uses the star model to diagnose how Google and
YouTube execute their change mission. Both websites are
under the Google Inc. leadership, whose goal is to provide free
useful information, while profiting from online advertising.
Google Inc. supports its strategy by investing in research and
development, outlining a clear mission statement for employees,
and rewarding network members by sharing advertising revenue.
The paper also covers Google Inc.’s SWOT analysis. It is a
leader in the web search and video sharing industry, and makes
most of its profit from the growing internet advertising
business. However, Google Inc. is facing steep competition
from other companies in the industry, and some of its attempts
to explore other ventures have failed.

Introduction
The internet continues to grow exponentially as more
people from around the world gain access. One of the most
interesting things about the internet is that it is very democratic.
Anyone can purchase a web page with very little capital and
share their opinions. Another reason for the growth in internet
usage is that there are more platforms with internet usage
capabilities, such as cell phones, and motor vehicles.
Advertisers cannot ignore this growth in internet usage. In fact,
the revenue from internet advertising is catching up with the
revenue of TV advertising. This creates opportunities for web-
based companies to increase their profits. Google and YouTube
are profiting from this shift in advertising by adopting
advertising based platforms. This paper covers their strategies,
people and practices, structure, rewards system, and SWOT
analysis.
Strategy
Google and YouTube are under the same leadership, with very
similar strategies to success. As mentioned in previous papers
Google and YouTube lacked direction when both companies
began. Under new leadership, profitability was added to the
equation, using an advertising model. The new leadership saw
both companies as game changers due to the competitive
advantage of the growth in internet use, the popularity of search
engine use, and the increasing power of video sharing. Both
companies were/are leaders in their sectors.
Google Inc’s leaders had a clear vision for both companies, to
provide free and useful information/products, while profiting
from advertising. This way, users of the free products and
information can advertise Google and YouTube, reducing the
need for a widespread advertising campaign. For example,
college students learn about various topics watching YouTube
videos, while drivers all over the country benefit from Google
maps. When those users talk about the benefits of using these
features, Google Inc. gets free advertising, while profiting from
businesses advertising on both websites.

People and Practices
Its highly motivated staff and their guiding principle carry out
Google Inc’s mission. Google Inc invests a lot of revenue and
labor in research and development. According to Google Inc.
(2008):
Its R&D spending in 2007 grew at 72.6% to $2,120 million from
$1,229 million in 2006. During 2003–2007, the company yon an
average invested about 10.5% of its revenue in R&D; the
spending has grown from 6.2% of the total revenues in 2003 to
12.8% in 2007. Its R&D staff also grew to 5,788 by the end of
FY2007 from 3,695 in 2006” (p. 6)
In addition, principals that are presented guide its research
heavy team to carry out the company’s mission. The first
principal is to put Google users before shareholders. An
example of this is on the Google search page. “The company
doesn't sell placement in its search results, and the rule for
advertising on the site is that it ‘must offer relevant content and
not be a distraction’ (Enough Sun Tzu?, 2005). The next
principle is that it is best to do one thing well. Google Inc.
focuses on excellence when it takes on new projects, instead of
just spreading talent thin. Third, Google continues to push
search speed limits with new algorithms because speed is king,
and restlessness pays off. Fourth, consumers get the most cited
information on Google and YouTube due to the design of their
search engines. Fifth, Google is pushing information access
beyond known limits, by focusing on mediums of access such as
cell phones and cars. Sixth, Google advertising is tailored to
adapt to searched material in order to provide relevant
information, and not misleading information. Seventh, Google
pushes its employees to continue adding information to their
search engine due to the belief that there is always information
out there. Eight, Google believes that information crosses all
borders, that is why people from all over the world post videos
on YouTube, and information on Google spans over a hundred
languages. Next, Google focuses on excellence, but it puts the
well-being of employees first, by providing services like free

food. Finally, Google believes that change is the only reality,
and therefore employees are constantly reminded that consistent
improvement is one of the main goals of the company.
Structure
Google Inc’s structure is aligned to its strategy to provide
free accessible useful information for consumers while profiting
from advertising. Google’s focus on constant improvement of
existing services leads to meaningful upgrades and updates of
their services, in order to satisfy users. First, Google is
improving the capacity of its search appliance by pushing Minis
and GB 1001s. “For as little as $2,000 per month, a licensee
can jump from the GB 1001 to the 4 million document capacity
GB 5005” (Arnold, 2009). Second, Google has been upgrading
its product line. For instance, its calendar and Gmail service
has seen constant upgrades. One of the most interesting
additions is Google chart for Gmail. This Skype-like video
conference service has the potential to exceed Skype’s 14-
million users. Third, Google’s investment in research and
development was covered previously. Investing in research and
development helps the company continue improving its services.
Lastly, Google Inc.’s structure allows entrepreneurs shape their
content from outside the company. This keeps the material on
Google search and YouTube unique and unpredictable.
Reward Systems
As mentioned previously, Google Inc. has several guiding
principles that help employees meet company goals. Google’s
culture of always seeking improvement fosters an employee
culture of thinking outside the box. Additionally, Google Inc’s
investment in research and development helps their highly
motivated team to create and improve free provisions enjoyed
by customers, while profiting from advertising. “The Android
operating system was developed and offered for free to the
mobile phone companies by Google. This helped Google get a
foothold in the mobile market” (Evans, 2013).
Google and YouTube have a rewards structure for entrepreneurs
that own channels, or websites, on their respective sites.

YouTube rewards entrepreneurs with a large following with
advertising revenue, and Google rewards website owners based
on how much traffic they have on their website. This reward
system is pro growth for both websites, because it encourages
entrepreneurs to put out more content, and promotes healthy
competition. In addition, content grows the volume of
information on both websites, which is one of the goals of
Google Inc., and growth attracts a wider range of users and
advertisers.
SWOT Analysis
Google Inc.
Helpful
to achieving the objective
Harmful
Internal origin
(attributes of the system)
Strengths
· Leading search engine globally (strong market position)
· Most efficient search engine technology and infrastructure
· Generates revenue from advertising
Weaknesses
· Venture into social networking is weak
· New launched products have little in common
External origin
(attributes of the environment)
Opportunities
· Internet usage continues to rise
· Online advertising is on an upward trajectory

· Investments in new cutting edge products
Threats
· Threat from other search engines
· Reliance on network members for revenue
· Challenges of cultural and privacy issues
YouTube Company
Helpful
Harmful
Internal origin
(attributes of the system)
Strengths
· Leading video sharing website globally (strong market
position)
· Efficient video sharing technology and infrastructure
· Generates revenue from advertising
Weaknesses
· Revenue being earned by its entrepreneurs is small
· The company is still not profitable after all these years
External origin
(attributes of the environment)
Opportunities
· Internet usage continues to rise
· Online advertising is on an upward trajectory
· Investments in new cutting edge products
Threats
· Threat from other video sharing sites

· Reliance on network members for revenue
· Challenges of cultural and privacy issues
Analysis Comparison
The reason why YouTube and Google have very similar
SWOT analysis is that they are under the same leadership. Both
companies are leaders in their industry, and use advertising as a
primary source of revenue. They both share their revenue with
network members in order to encourage the expansion of
material on both websites. The only difference between both
companies is that YouTube is a video sharing website While
Google is a search-based website. Both companies have a solid
business plan because internet usage and advertising is
projected to grow. This means that both companies can expect
more profits from advertisers. Additionally, Google Inc’s
investment in technologies such as cell phones, and vehicle
technologies, is increasing access to Google and YouTube.
Areas of Resistance
Companies that connect people to web-based information are
threats to Google search. Microsoft and Yahoo are its main
rivals because they provide alternate web search services that
are increasingly popular. “Microsoft has developed features
that make web search a more integrated part of its Windows
operating system and other desktop software products” (Google
Inc., 2008). If any of Google’s competitors comes up with a
better search engine with information that is more relevant,
advertisers and users may migrate. This would lead to a
reduction of the Google network, which will lead to revenue
loss. Google and YouTube rely heavily on network members,
which mean that a loss of members to competitors might be
disastrous for both companies.
Another area of concern for both companies is cultural problems
from countries around the world. Different countries have
difference standards of what is appropriate for their citizens to
view on the internet. This means that both companies have to
understand several cultures in order to filter content

appropriately. A third area of concern is that Google Inc has
failed in some of its investments, and that some of its
investments have nothing in common. For instance, Google
Inc’s efforts to make a mark in social media have been a failure
so far. A similar problem is that YouTube is very popular and
yet the company has not made any profits for Google Inc. after
all these years. A final problem is that their sharing of
advertising revenue with network members does not provide
enough money for their entrepreneurs to keep providing needed
content. This might pressure them to stop adding content, and it
can force Google Inc. to cut down on its free services.
Conclusion
The revenue generated by internet advertising is catching
up with the revenue generated by television advertising. This is
because internet usage keeps growing, as access to the internet
becomes easier, and more affordable. Using the star model, the
author was able to analyze the change within YouTube and
Google that allowed them to take advantage of the growing
internet-advertising model. The areas of resistance faced by
both companies are threats from companies having similar
platforms, and their heavy reliance on network members.
Google Inc. has to diversify its sources of revenue, and altar its
business model in order to secure its position as the leading
search engine and video sharing company.
References
Arnold, S. (2009). Google AND THE Cuculus STRATEGY. KM
World, 18(3), 17. Retrieved from
http://eds.a.ebscohost.com.proxy.devry.edu/eds/pdfviewer/

pdfviewer?vid=32&sid=88e05 af9-3895-427f-b38d-
ecd5b1e4a050%40sessionmgr4002&hid=4203
Enough Sun Tzu?. (2005). Strategic Finance, 86(8), 56.
Retrieved from
Evans, D. (2013). All Eyes on Google. Plastic Surgery
Practice, 23(2), 8. Retrieved from
pdfviewer?vid=17&sid=88e05 [email protected]&hid=4205
Google Inc. (2008). Google Inc. SWOT Analysis, 1-11.
Retrieved from
PORTFOLIO STRATEGY: GOOGLE INC. (2008). Treasury &
Risk, 33. Retrieved from
Sheet1Change ImageBasis of ImageApplication to Company
#1Application to Company #2Pressures for ChangeDiffers from
others how?Unintended consequences from
ImageDirectorChange manager designs the change process and
directs the people to comply with it so that the intended change
is achieved.The Apple executive management changes would
encourage more collaboration between the hardware‚ service‚
and software teams.The Wal-Mart management changes would

enable it evolve in a pace that would enable the company to
continue outpacing and even exceed the company’s
customers.The process of change involves changing the
management in a way that will control as well as make the
expected outcomes to be achievable.Director image is generally
supported by the contigency theory and the n-steps model. The
changes achieved are as a result of implementation of given set
stepsThe individuals or groups in the organization lose their
innovative and self reliance skills and get used to implementing
set objectives from the director. This is overally detrimental to
the growth of the organization.NavigatorDesigning change
process in a way that would aid best fit the conditions being
facedChange was done in Apple by making the product
invention process to be efficient and by making the company to
be more corporateChange was done in Wal-Mart by aligning the
company’s structure with its three priorities that are returns‚
leverage‚ and growth.The conditions of change that made the
company to want to make the change.Generally relies on the
contextualist and processual theories of organizational
change.The outcomes from the set goals do not go in tandem
with the dynamic change in the market such that they become
obsolete as soon aas they are achieved.CaretakerCoachA change
manager helps the organizational members in enhancing
personal development on the capabilities that are required to
ensuring that the change process is successful.Apple added
mores roles to its executive management members.Wal-Mart
focused on growing the company’s store management teams.The
right set of values‚ drills‚ and skills that are paramount to the
achievement of the desired organizational outcome.Mainly
centers on individual, gropu and organizational level
perfomance improvement to achieve a synergistic outcome by
harnessing full potential functionality of these systems.The
groups and individuals now equiped with relevant managerial
values and skills decide to break away from the organisation
and take on individual ventures. This is a great loss to the
organization.InterpreterNurturer

Sheet2
Sheet3
PART 1
Topic Selection
Nutchanart Ponim
[email protected]
Keller Graduate School of Management
Author’s Note This Project is being submitted on 4 September
2015, for Professor: Gary Bertels’s HRM587 Managing
Organizational Change
Project
One of the publicly traded companies that have undergone
considerable amount of organizational change in the United
States is Apple‚ Inc. In period between the years 1993 and 1997
Apple‚ Inc. was in the verge of collapsing. This is because the
company was generally struggling to finds its consistent source
of profitable revenue. It generally tried and failed to markets its
products that include TV appliances‚ CD players‚ digital
cameras‚ etc.
The company‚ however‚ resolved for organizational change led
by the CEO Steve Jobs. Upon his return as the CEO of the
company‚ Jobs opted to focus its product base on the creation of
several different beautiful consumer electronic products that
were appealing to the preferences and tastes of the
customers(Myers et al.‚ 2012) It also acquired several
companies that dealt in digital production and video editing for
which constitutes its consumer base. Some of the positive

outcomes of this change include products such as iPod and
iPhone that led to a tremendous increase in the company’s sales.
The second publicly traded company that has undergone some
considerable amount of change is Wal-Mart. In 2010‚ Wal-Mart
commenced organizational change that was meant for aligning
the business with the three priorities of the company‚ which
include returns‚ leverage‚ and growth. The main objective
behind the organizational change was to ensure that more value
is generally delivered to the company’s shareholders and
consumers(Worley et al.‚ 2013)The changes were generally
designed to see to it that every part of the company’s business
would make the company more global‚ leveraging the
company’s scale‚ and helping in ensuring that the company
went loser to its customers. This project is therefore going to
compare the organizational changes that havetaken place in
Apple‚ Inc. and Wal-Mart Inc.
Reference
Myers, P., Hulks, S., & Wiggins, L. (2012). Organizational
change: Perspectives on theory and practice. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Worley, C. G., Porras, J., & Lawler, E. E. (2013). Built to
change: How to achieve sustained organizational
effectiveness. San Francisco, Calif: Jossey-Bass.
Running head: PROJECT 2
PROJECT 2
2
The changes that were first seen at Apple were in 1997 when
Steve Jobs returned to the company. He generally changes the

course of the company by simplifying things through his
collaboration with Jonathan Ives. They generally grafted a very
special design aesthetic for Apple(Daft& Sandburg, 2000).In a
period of 4 years after coming back to the company‚ he was able
to distill the company’s product matrix into pro desktop‚ pro
notebook‚ consumer notebook‚ and consumer desk top. He also
eliminated competitions in the company’s management that
existed in product development process. This played a very
important part in enabling the company to change its course in a
quick manner in response to technological changes‚ changes in
users‚ changes in markets‚ and the general changes that were
going on around the world at that time. He generally changed
the company’s hardware strategy. It was through his leadership
that the company was able to bring products such as iPod‚
iPhone‚ and the iPad. However‚ under the leadership of Tim
Cook the company has also undergone some remarkable
changes.
Apple‚ Inc. has undergone considerable amount of change since
the time when Tim Cook took over as the CEO from the former
CEO Steve Jobs. It is important to note that Cook has tried as
much as possible to maintain the unique corporate culture of
Apple while taking the company through a term of
organizational change.In general terms‚ under the leadership of
Cook‚ Apple has become more corporate compared to the time
when it was under the leadership of Steve jobs. It is also
important to point out that since the time that Cook took over
the leadership of the company the company has generally gone
up by a market value the is approximately $140 billion.
One of the areas where Cook has stressed in the company is the
enhancement of operational efficiency. The company’s has been
faced with a breakage of the warehouses‚ factories‚ and
suppliers when he joined the company in 1998. He generally
strengthened the company’s corporation with the contract
manufacturers aboard and mainly the ones in China. The other
important organizational changes that have been stressed on by
the company’s CEO are the ones that would aid in increasing

collaboration across software‚ hardware‚ and services. In the
year 2012‚ the company made executive management changes
that were aimed at increasing collaboration between its world-
class software‚ hardware‚ and service teams. Part of those
changes involved some members of the executive management‚
such asCraig Fderrighi‚ Eddy Cue‚ Bob Mansfield‚ and Jony Ive
adding more responsibilities to their various roles in the
company.It is important to point out that most of these changes
that were brought into the company’s executive management
and their teams were aimed at strengthening the services and
products of the company to meet and even exceed the high
needs of the company’s customers(Myers et al.‚ 2012).
For the case of Wal-Mart‚ the most remarkable changes were
the ones that were announced in 2010. These changes were to be
done across the company’s business in order to align the
company’s structure with its three priorities that are returns‚
leverage‚ and growth.These changes were aimed at ensuring that
more value is generally delivered to the company’s shareholders
and customers(Worley et al.‚ 2013). The changes that were
made in the company’s business were designed mainly to ensure
that every part of the company’s business becomes increasingly
global‚ leverages the company’s scale‚ and could enable the
company to move closer to the customers. The changes were
also aimed at ensuring that the company’s associates succeed
and advance at the company and in their lives.
Generally‚ Wal-Mart has faced positive and innovative change
in its store management structure‚ scheduling system‚ and some
improvements in the company’s inventory management.The
company’s merchandise clarity and store remodels have
generally allowed its customers to thrive better in an economy
that is difficult to live by. It is important to note that the
company is well aware of the fact that the customers need are
generally changing in a rapid manner around the globe and have
high expectations of the company. The company therefore
needed to make changes in order to cope with the changes being
experienced in the global market. The main change that was

done was to change the company’s management team through
restructuring and terminating the services of some of the
employees.
Comparing the changes that were carried out in the two
companies‚ it can be seen that they both have similarities and
differences. One of the similarities is that the changes are done
in order to meet and even exceed the expectations of the
customers of the company’s products. The second similarity is
that some changes in the management were carried out for the
two companies. One difference that s apparent is that for the
Case of Apple‚ Cook has been working to bring about change
that will make the company more corporate‚ while for Wal-Mart
most of the changes carried out have been intended to leverage
the sale of the company and to ensure that the company goes
global.
Below is a comparison of the three selected images that include
director change image‚ navigator change image‚ and coach
change image.For the director change image‚ the managers
involved in the change process designs the change process and
also directs the people involved in the change process to comply
with the change in order for that change to be achieved. For the
navigator change image‚ control is generally the heart of the
action by the management in bringing the required change. The
change manager generally designs the process in a way that best
fits the conditions that the company is facing. The coach change
image‚ on the other hand‚ involves change managers ensuring
that the people involved in bringing the intended changes are
equipped with the capabilities that are required to accomplish
the intended outcomes. For the case of Apple‚ the achievement
of an increased market value by $140 billion is a good indicator
that the change was successful. Similarly‚ the ability of Wal-
Mart to enter new markets globally is a proof of the success of
its change process. The director change image is the one that
most contributed to the success of the change process in both
companies. This is because both the two companies re-
organized their management teams to align them with the

intended organizational outcomes(Palmer et al.‚ 2008).
References
Daft, R. L., & Sandburg, E. (2000). Management. Fort Worth,
Tex. [u.a.: Dryden Press.
Myers, P., Hulks, S., & Wiggins, L. (2012). Organizational
change: Perspectives on theory and practice. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Palmer, I., Akin, G., & Dunford, R. (2008). Managing
organizational change: A multiple perspectives approach. New
York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.
Worley, C. G., Porras, J., & Lawler, E. E. (2013). Built to
change: How to achieve sustained organizational
effectiveness. San Francisco, Calif: Jossey-Bass.

Running Head DIAGNOSING THE CHANGE DIAGNOSING THE C.docx

More Related Content

Similar to Running Head DIAGNOSING THE CHANGE DIAGNOSING THE C.docx (20)

More from joellemurphey (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Running Head DIAGNOSING THE CHANGE DIAGNOSING THE C.docx