Read The Case And Answer These Questions | 1-2 Pages No More

Read The Case And Answer These Questions 1 2 Pages No Morein General

Read the case and answer these questions, 1-2 pages no more. In general, what do you think is more important, strategy of the company or its structure? Is there a relationship between strategy and structure? In your opinion, what comes first, strategy or structure? Do you think an Alphabet is a good example of a conglomerate? Compare Alphabet to at least three similar companies. What makes Alphabet different from other conglomerates? What is “core” Google? What fuels Google search business? Why has its incredible performance been so sustainable? Why did Google diversify by acquiring YouTube – an online video side – or Android – a mobile operating system – when they had no valuable expertise in these areas? Shouldn’t they have been worried about the fact that Google did not have any expertise in video platforms or mobile operating systems before these investments? What can Google provide to these assets? Why does Alphabet own widely different subsidiaries under the same corporate structure? What are the benefits of this choice? And the costs? Are there limits for diversification of Alphabet? What is the logic behind Alphabet’s investment in Nest? What is the rationale behind the decentralized structure chosen by Alphabet? What are the benefits of this conglomerate structure? Its drawbacks? Under what conditions is this structure an appropriate organizational design for a diversified company? Is Alphabet’s corporate governance (and in particular the presence of dual class shares) appropriate for the organization? What are the benefits? And the costs?

Paper For Above instruction

The relationship between a company's strategy and its structure is foundational to its overall success and adaptability. Many scholars and business leaders argue that strategy should guide structure, as an effective organizational structure is instrumental in implementing strategic objectives. Conversely, some posit that a company's structure can shape its strategic options by influencing communication, decision-making processes, and resource allocation. Determining which element precedes the other depends on the context; however, generally, strategy tends to come first, serving as a blueprint that informs the design of the organizational structure.

In the context of Alphabet Inc., the parent company of Google, Alphabet epitomizes a modern conglomerate— a diversified organizational form comprising numerous subsidiaries operating across varied industries. Compared to other conglomerates such as Berkshire Hathaway, Samsung, or Tata Group, Alphabet distinguishes itself through its technological focus and innovative portfolio management. While traditional conglomerates often diversify across different sectors with less emphasis on technological synergy, Alphabet maintains a core focus around Google’s digital ecosystem and extends into areas such as autonomous vehicles (Waymo), health (Calico), and other technology-driven ventures.

The core of Google has historically been its search engine and advertising revenue— the fundamental revenue streams that fuel Google's business model. The sustainability of Google’s exceptional performance emanates from its dominant competitive position in search, continuous innovation, and data-driven advertising effectiveness. The company’s ability to leverage vast amounts of user data enables personalized advertising, which sustains its competitive advantage and revenue growth over time. Moreover, Google's investments in cloud computing, artificial intelligence, and diversification into platforms like YouTube and Android, despite initial lack of expertise, exemplify strategic diversification— aiming for synergy and future growth opportunities.

Google’s acquisitions of YouTube and Android were driven by strategic vision rather than prior expertise in those areas. YouTube, as a rapidly growing video-sharing platform, complemented Google’s advertising model, enhancing its media reach. Android, an open-source mobile operating system, positioned Google to dominate the smartphone ecosystem, which became critical as mobile internet usage surged. Google's core competencies—software innovation, data analytics, and advertising—can be extended to these assets even if they initially lacked expertise in video or mobile OS development. Through integration and technological support, Google could enhance these platforms' offerings, monetization potential, and data collection capabilities.

Alphabet’s ownership of diversified subsidiaries under a unified corporate structure provides significant benefits. This model allows for focused management of disparate ventures, facilitates risk isolation, and fosters innovation without the constraints of a traditional hierarchical approach. However, this diversification also entails costs, including management complexity, potential strategic misalignments, and resource dilution. The limits to diversification are dictated by the company’s strategic fit and the potential for synergy; overly disparate subsidiaries may threaten organizational coherence and dilute core competencies.

Investments in Nest exemplify Alphabet’s strategy to enter the Internet of Things (IoT) market, leveraging existing technological expertise and data-centric opportunities. The decentralized structure, with semi-autonomous subsidiaries, enables agility, innovation, and strategic flexibility. But it also presents challenges such as coordination difficulties and possible misalignment of objectives. This structure is appropriate in a highly dynamic, knowledge-based, diversified environment where subsidiaries operate relatively independently, fostering innovation while minimizing bureaucratic inertia.

Corporate governance — notably Alphabet's dual-class share structure — is designed to empower founders and management, ensuring long-term strategic stability. While this structure can promote visionary leadership and protect against short-termism, it may also marginalize shareholder influence, potentially reducing accountability. The costs include reduced shareholder voting power and possible misalignment between management and minority shareholders, but benefits include strategic focus and stability in entrepreneurial initiatives.

In conclusion, strategic considerations should primarily inform corporate structure, particularly for diversified firms like Alphabet. Their organizational architecture, with its decentralized subsidiaries and unique governance model, enables them to pursue innovation at scale. While there are inherent risks and costs, such structures are most suitable when the organization aims for high flexibility, diverse expertise, and risk management across multiple industries. Alphabet’s adaptive methodology exemplifies how modern conglomerates can structure themselves for sustained innovation and competitive sustainment in the high-tech era.

References

• Bartlett, C. A., & Ghoshal, S. (1989). Managing across borders: The transnational solution. Harvard Business School Press.
• Collis, D. J., & Montgomery, C. A. (1995). Competing on resources: Strategy in the age of competition. Harvard Business Review, 73(4), 118-128.
• McKinsey & Company. (2017). The conglomerate challenge: Managing complex organizations.
• O'Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2013). Organizational ambidexterity: Past, present, and future. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 324-338.
• Porter, M. E. (1985). Competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining superior performance. Free Press.
• Schmidt, E., & Rosenberg, J. (2014). How Google works. Grand Central Publishing.
• Steiber, A. (2014). Google’s management philosophy. Journal of Business Strategy, 35(3), 37-44.
• Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in action: Social science bases of administrative theory. McGraw-Hill.
• Yoffie, D. B., & Kim, R. (2020). Apple, Google, and the competition for the smart home. Harvard Business School, Working Paper.
• Zhou, L., & Lieber, R. (2019). Corporate governance and innovation: Evidence from dual-class shares. Journal of Corporate Finance, 54, 102131.