Option 1: Evaluating an Existing Change

 
1- Introduction
 
The most crucial part of the change of any level in any organization comes downs to its teams
and individuals. However, Leaders on the other side are known to have a more focused level of
responsibility even over these factors.
 
Google Organizational Change Into Alphabet Inc.
 
When we look at the tech industry, we can't talk about it without mentioning Google. The
company under Alphabet is perhaps the most influential company within the technology sector.
With reported profits of over $150 billion, the global giant specializes in a vast range of services.
While Google's services massively expanded following the restructuring into Alphabet, there
were many factors that got disrupted due to this change. The company still delivers a variety of
products for the general audience.
 
 
2- (Topic/ Change)

 
Organization-Wide Change In Existing Companies
 
The factors that basically create challenges for companies are globalization, tech, and
sustainability. The constant development of the markets proceeds towards an essential
organizational change. With Google's restructuring, the case is no different than the rest. But
what exactly is changing and how much it impacts an organization?
 
When we talk about change, existing companies face a lot of challenges to sustain the success of
the implemented change in the company. Notably, this success depends on how a theoretical
body is developed with respect to organizational development and task focus.
 
Integrating Lewin's Theory of Change In Restructuring of Companies
 
Kurt Lewin describes a model that was influential in contributing to the change theories on an
organizational scale. The model is developed and proceeded in 3 major steps of approaches.
 
 Phase 1 is the process of Unfreezing. According to the model, Unfreezing is the first
phase of the change model in which the company members become unsatisfied with the
ongoing change.
 
 Phase 2 is all about labeled moving. This comprises the shifting of groups from one
behavior to another ones. According to the model, these behaviors are required to become
more than just temporary ones for a designated period.
 
  Phase 3 is about Refreezing. This is where the managerial department tries to stable
things within the groups followed by new behaviors. The aim of this approach is to
achieve maximum security against a possible 
relapse.
 
Organizational Development Following a Restructure
 
In general, development on an organizational level is a planned effort that happens organization-
wide. The aim of this effort is to increase the effectiveness of the organization and is managed
from the upper levels. Aside from that it also focuses on planning organizational knowledge and
processes to survive possible challenges within the market.
 
Organizations are independent systems that require interactive states to thrive as much as
possible. These companies include various stakeholders that legitimately assert the company's
outcomes. Therefore companies need to develop positively once restructuring is completed. Not
only does it increase the risks for the stakeholders, but in the overall market value.
 
 
3- Case/organization
 

Which Factors Caused a Complete Restructure of Google Company? 

 
 Google Transformation Into Alphabet Inc
 
The internet giant Google was founded in the year 1995 by Larry Page and Sergey Brin. These
were the two students studying at Stanford University when they started working on Google
from their garage. Over the years, Google has captured a large part of the search engine market
and remains undefeatable by its competition. Throughout this time, the company launched a
wide range of products and services. Some of these services are so impacting that it has become
an important part of our daily lives. Not only that, but the company seems to be going in
innovative directions even more. Either way, advertising income stayed as the leading financing
factor for the company ever since.
 
Due to such massive growth and expansion, Google began to face lawsuits and market
challenges in staying stable. This alongside modern approaches caused the owners to totally
restructure the company under the name Alphabet Inc.
 
4- Structure of the report 
 
After having global dominance over search engines, Google sure was facing a lot of challenges
in terms of both internal and external factors of the organization.
 
Looking at these conditions, Google faced severe anti-trust hearings at courts as well as growing
challenges in terms of proper customer satisfaction. Since Google has become a very important
aspect of our digital lives, any effect on it will surely shake up the IT industry hard.
 
However, Google was there to identify this challenge before anyone else and went on with a total
restructuring. While it faced a lot of scrutiny and challenges, it was clear that Google needed this
change on an organizational scale. But this change didn't only bring positive factors, but negative
outcomes as well.
 
The restructuring of the company and the overall change proved difficult in the short term but is
very beneficial for the company to survive in the long term. This report aims to evaluate the
context and triggers of change that resulted in Google's company restructuring and how deeply it
can affect the overall tech industry.
 
 
5- Evaluation
 
The Context and Triggers of Change for Google
 
The actual catalysts that incepted Google to restructure on an organizational level were the
market demand. The demand of the market was increasing in terms of financial transparency and
stable methods to evaluate businesses. When using such a method for the company's
development, all the stakeholders will be facing the circle of change. Moving on to the new
strategy demands better functions for the members of the company. Google has surely set an
amazing example of how an organization can be both successful and innovative if implemented
well.
 
Principles of Change Management and Models With Respect to Various Scenarios
 
The organizational change in Google had a suitable response to the demands of the investors
regarding financial transparency and stable performance administration. Not only that, but it also
included the will to deliver rewards to the leading executives. This was handled well as Google
fulfilled all their demands and even went as far as making senior executives lead CEOs in their
respective areas. The most important part of the restructuring was the level of increased
transparency.
 
The Alphabet company is administered to check and stabilize the profits of every purpose the
company operates upon. This can include market purposes as well as investment purposes for
better notice. Since all of these aspects can be measured, the administration worked in favor of
the restructured company.
 
 
Dynamics and Psychology of Change: How Google Managed The Resistance after the
Restructuring?
 
Google had its company units form succeeding businesses leading to additional possibilities of
profits. Although the resistance due to the massive change is there that maintains costs as well as
shares and prices. The company's management dealt with it quite smoothly by assisting the
business through a shift. This shift helped the business to improve accountability as well as
managerial aspects of the company.
 
Impact of Change on the Overall Google's Culture and Employment Sector
 
Creators of Google publicly initiated their vision of a total restructure of the company and hence
the first impact it got was totally public. However, with Alphabet, they also shared a new vision
to integrate a new structure that gives Alphabet control on all the services Google has been
administrating. According to Larry Page, the major focus is on companies that are managed by
innovative leaders with great control. The model, therefore, introduced different CEOs for all the
leading subsidiaries.
 
 
Role of the Managerial Department In Google's Restructuring
 
Leadership and management are the ability to be inspirational enough that their actions prepare
others to act well. Google selected the managers who have been doing things the right way
irrespective of their background aspects. Aside from that, their leaders are the ones who know
what the right thing is. Both of these roles and important in organizations like Google and Page
handled it well.
 
The major focus of this restructuring is motivated by aspects of transformational leadership. It
means Google proceeded with leaders that are more innovative and inspirational to encourage
and keep the vision fulfilled. Not only did it result in the formation of better and stable teams and
departments, but also better long-term goals.
 
6- Recommendations
 
In order for Alphabet Inc. to have more stability with its restructuring, the following
recommendations are proposed.
 
To address the challenging scenarios that Alphabet might face with its subsidiaries, the
managerial department needs to shift the focus on restructured management model. The
managerial sector of the conglomerate will be solely responsible for adding more stability to the
company's employment scandals and challenges. This department working alongside the cyber
department to boost the company's atmosphere for its employees will boost the company's
change positively.
 
7- Conclusion
 
Google made its executives follow everything necessary before proceeding with a risky
restructure of the complete organization. This implementation needed leaders to expand and
share the vision Google planned for the future. Aside from that, the ability to keep it encouraged
and motivated towards their employees was also a key aspect of Google's vision. It is clear that
Google is a leading company in terms of innovation and they are always working on new
projects. Therefore, having effective leaders, Google founders decided on a strategic decision
that will boost Google's growth for years to come.
 
 
8- References
 
 Kritsonis, A., 2005. Comparison of change theories. International journal of scholarly
academic intellectual diversity, 8(1), pp.1-7. 
 Rubin, I.M. and Beckhard, R., 1972. Factors influencing the effectiveness of health
teams. The Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly, 50(3), pp.317-335.
 Bennis, W. and Nanus, B., 1985. The strategies for taking charge. Leaders, New York:
Harper. Row, 41.
 Viruena, V., 2022. Google Became Alphabet: Organizational Change. [online] Victor
Virueña Blog. Available at: <https://victorviruena.home.blog/2019/10/11/google-
became-alphabet-organizational-change/> [Accessed 11 October 2019].
 Spector, P.E., 2021. Industrial and organizational psychology: Research and practice.
John Wiley & Sons.
 Bejinariu, A.C., Jitarel, A., Sarca, I. and Mocan, A., 2017. Organizational change
management-concepts definitions and approaches inventory. In Management Challenges
in a Network Economy: Proceedings of the MakeLearn and TIIM International
Conference (pp. 321-330).
 ] Burke & Litwin, ‘A Causal Model of Organisation Performance and Change’, Journal
of Management, Vol 18, No 3 (1992), pp 523–545.
 Cameron, E. and Green, M., 2019. Making sense of change management: A complete
guide to the models, tools and techniques of organizational change. Kogan Page
Publishers.

Option 2: Proposing a change

1- Introduction

How Large Innovative Companies Like Google Propose Organization Changes?

In companies like Google, change is happening continuously over time. However, managing and
operating with it is not as easy as it sounds. Therefore companies always have large discussions
about whether a change is needed to be proposed or not. Google manages all the proposed
changes using multiple methods that impact the company massively. While the company seems
to avoid reorganization, Page's move to restructure the company under Alphabet introduced
renewed frameworks for Google employees. To maintain stability as well as fluidity in such
proposed changes, the company needs to adopt certain measures for maximizing the impact.

2- (topic/ change)

Organizational Change and Models of Leadership

Once a company has moved on with a set of discussions, it is important to follow models of
leadership before the proposed changes. It should always start with questions all the way to
committing and not just launching. It is clear that companies and giants like Google must be
open to such changes to survive in the challenging market. However, after large paradigms of
disruption, making sure if it's successful or not is also a big challenge. This can include using
models of leadership to assure everything including the performance, services, etc are stable
enough to continue.

3- Case/ Organisation

An Important Proposal of Google's Restructural Direction

The founders of Google Larry Page and Sergey Brin are well aware of how technologies work
than most people in the industry. Not only that, but they also know which decisions can help
their company proceed in the right direction. Being technology leaders, their grand move of
restructuring Google into competitive branches. turned out quite important for the company in
the long term.

4- Structure of the report

Having dominated a large number of expansions in its area, the proposed change in Google's
structure seemed controversial at first. With such changes, the company was sure to face a lot of
challenges related to its employment and management sector.

However, the leaders' Larry Page and Sergey Brin proposed a change in a way it kept Google
afloat among this massive tech industrial ocean. The report aims to study the proposed changes
Google and its management faced after the restructuring.

5- (topic 1)

Organizational Design and Strategic Change

 Leadership Structure at Google After The Restructure

The corporate structure of Google faced unusual changes with unique leadership positions
following the Alphabet restructuring. The restructure announced positions like Chief Internet
Evangelist and Chief Culture Officer. Not only that, but the administration remained from Board
directors to the management sector. The leadership structure is mostly focused on departments
that need administration. This can include areas like Engineering, services, finances, legal and
more. The departments are split into manageable units and branch into designated locations. Due
to this, the company has developed a culture empowered by allowing employees to develop
innovative ideas well on a global scale.
Company Culture and Change at Google

 Working Methods and Company Culture

Google ever since its operations went global has been quite noticed for its unusual working rules.
The models work on balancing loyalty, creativity as well as innovation. Having such emphasis
on innovation, the employees follow the infamous 70/20/10 method of working. This rule is
followed as devoting 70 percent of work assigned by the management. Moving on 20 percent to
new projects and 10 percent to innovative ideas despite the risks. Over the years, the company
credits this rule as being the key motivation for Google's innovative services and products. There
is enough room for every employee to explore their creativity well.

 Power Politics and Proposed Changes at Google

With tech giants like Google, it is general to assume some sort of politics in terms of
administrative control. However, according to various researches, the system at Google is very
open without any barriers. There is constant communication with the CEOs, work promoting,
and collaborative takes on projects in a friendly way. 

With respect to culture and performance, it is no surprise the management system is extremely
disciplined at Google. The system is made in a way to keep accountability at its maximum with
constant feedback from management for improved development. Not only is the system more
efficient this way, but also more effective. In general, the office politics at Google are very less
compared to other giants in the industry.

Resistance and Change Factors at Google

 Criticisms Post-Alphabet at Google's Culture

While Google is open to creativity and innovation, there are many criticisms from the finance
departments of the company. The major arguments are related to allowing "too much" creativity
that it fails to generate beneficial revenue. The major reason for that was said to be the allowance
of many projects without any cost to encourage Google's main factor.

 Gender Distinction Factors at Google

Much like many Silicon Valley names, Google also faced gender distinctions followed by the
Alphabet Inc restructuring. The major factors of these criticisms are related to the pay scale and
the harassment cases. Google seemingly acknowledged all issues and has taken effective steps to
reduce these cons as much as possible.

6- (topic 2)
Change Communications and Transparency 

 The shift in Communication at Google Post-Alphabet Restructuring 

The leader Larry Page clearly launched Alphabet by explaining the restructured organization's
communication. It is implemented in a way to keep employees free and more productive with
their ideals even without concerning Google. This is something Page believes will lead to the
company's growth 10 times faster. This surely made the companies more accountable in terms of
income, expenses, and many more. This shift in independent communication methods increased
not only transparency but also plans to fulfill Page's vision for Google.

 Organizational Learning and Development at Google 

It is not surprising at all that Google is a renowned company in terms of learning and
development. The company serves its model of a corporate learning culture pretty well.
Employees are given flexible schedules to work with respect to their personal preferences. Not
only that but all that in a way that keeps their productivity maximized. The staff is diverse and
operates effectively in favor of everyone.

This developmental mindset sure leads to more opportunities and collaborative outcomes for the
departments. Not only does it keep the employees motivated to improve and upgrade their
skillsets but also increases their contributions. The best part is that Google values all of these
contributions and risky choices even if it results in failure. Aside from that, Google values
leaders, managers, and anyone who can keep the teams afloat. Larry Page early on decided what
Google needed to make its managers great early on. One of their most well-known managers and
his rise to an executive level, Sundar Pichai is a clear example of this.

Evaluating and Sustaining Restructural Changes at Google

Once Google was done building its massive empire of futuristic projects, Larry Page decided that
the company needed a proper reorganization. Being a tech giant isn't as cool as it sounds because
of the risk factor it gradually increases over time. When we talk about a name like Google, the
company's expansion and growth are still huge. Even though the finance departments didn't see
any sustainability once gone with these approaches, Google decided to do it anyway. It kept the
employees under pressure during the time but gradually increases their roles after its completion.

These procedures led Google to become diversely effective but also demanding from industrial
markets. They increased the number of projects and sectors to research and that was something
that needed evaluation with a change. Due to such massive growth, managing Google was
becoming quite a difficult task for the upper management. Therefore, to save serious problems
for the future, Page evaluated this change in the company. This resulted in a total conglomerate
restructuring of the company with new and improvised models.

How Google Become a Part of a Conglomerate

Page proceeded with dividing Google and its projects into various companies focused on a niche.
However, all of them got owned by the newly formed Alphabet Inc. Even though Larry Page
might not have the same level of effect as an executive on Alphabet, its companies follow the
main vision he created. Not only that but all of these companies has their independent goals and
are dedicated to fulfilling them.

Quite clearly it was not an easy task for Google to evaluate change on such a massive level.
However, since the leaders wanted the company to be separate in the major aspects of its
direction, it was uniquely suited to their personal ambitions and visions. Not only did it allow the
company to be easier to handle, but also productive in years.

Sustaining Evaluated Change at Alphabet

With all that going, the change evaluated and everything, the next goal was to keep it sustained.
Google's leaders go by the motto of "Don't Be Evil" and base all of its policies accordingly.
Clearly, it is something the company is heavily based on and what caused the change to sustain
despite such challenges. Not to mention it also gave the employees working at Google a totally
different feeling from other companies.

7- Conclusion and Recommendations

Having a change in an ongoing organization is surely a daunting task, especially if the company
is as huge as Google. However, Page seemed to have known all that was necessary to direct
Google in a direction that'll help the company thrive for decades to come.

It will be in Google's favor to respond to such challenges using modern HR and merger
ideologies. While keeping on previous methods worked, it is clear those methods bring a lot of
risk alongside it. If the company is going to face another shift of change due to things like the
Metaverse, then their next approach should have modern terminologies of how businesses
behave. Not only will it minimize the risks these changes bring, but will also lead to a positive
result for the company.

8- References

 Andrews, D., 2022. Gender Barriers and Solutions to Leadership - Training Industry.

[online] Training Industry. Available at:
<https://trainingindustry.com/magazine/issue/gender-barriers-and-solutions-to-
leadership/> [Accessed 9 January 2022].
 Wadhwa, V., 2020. Why Google’s Alphabet reorganization was the right move. [online]
The Washington Post. Available at:
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/innovations/wp/2015/08/11/why-googles-
alphabet-reorganization-was-the-right-move/> [Accessed 15 January 2022].
 Thompson, S., 2019. Google's Business Leadership and Organizational Culture. [online]
Small Business - Chron.com. Available at: <https://smallbusiness.chron.com/googles-
business-leadership-organizational-culture-58108.html> [Accessed 9 March 2019].
 Sumagaysay, L., 2022. Google employees demand better protection from internal
harassment. [online] MarketWatch. Available at:
<https://www.marketwatch.com/story/google-employees-demand-better-protection-from-
internal-harassment-11617993257#:~:text=In%20November%202018%2C%20thousands
%20of,why%20they%20had%20left%20Google.> [Accessed 15 January 2022].
 Tran, S.K. GOOGLE: a reflection of culture, leader, and management. Int J Corporate
Soc Responsibility 2, 10 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40991-017-0021-0
 Smithson, N., 2022. Google’s Organizational Structure & Organizational Culture (An
Analysis) - Panmore Institute. [online] Panmore Institute. Available at:
<http://panmore.com/google-organizational-structure-organizational-culture> [Accessed
13 February 2019].
 Alvesson, M. (2012). Understanding Organizational Culture. Sage.
 Ashkenas, R., Ulrich, D., Jick, T., & Kerr, S. (2015). The boundaryless organization:
Breaking the chains of organizational structure. John Wiley & Sons.
 Borodai, V. (2017). Brand of the employer as DNA of the corporate culture of service
company. European Research, 2(1), 34-35.
 Claver-Cortes, E., Pertusa-Ortega, E. M., & Molina-Azorin, J. F. (2012). Characteristics
of organizational structure relating to hybrid competitive strategy. Journal of Business
Research, 65(7), 993-1002.
 Elsbach, K. D., & Stigliani, I. (2018). Design Thinking and Organizational Culture: A
Review and Framework for Future Research. Journal of Management, 44(6), 2274-2306.
 Fiordelisi, F., & Ricci, O. (2014). Corporate culture and CEO turnover. Journal of
Corporate Finance, 28, 66-82.
 Guiso, L., Sapienza, P., & Zingales, L. (2015). Corporate culture, societal culture, and
institutions. American Economic Review, 105(5), 336-39.