Closing Case Google
The Google's mission plays a critical role as far as driving strategy at the company is concerned. For instance, JONES, (n.d), apparently pointed out that the company's mission raised hopes in various human rights activists that the company would eliminate government censorship, democratize information, while facilitating its accessibility. Therefore, the company's mission drives strategy by convincing public that the company is only solution in information transmission and sharing. In other words, the Google's mission is a critical tool contributing to driving the strategy in market.
Though some people may think that the company's stance toward internet search in China is consistent with its mission, according to my opinion this is not. For instance, the company's mission is "to organize the world's information and make it universally acceptable and useful". The company aims at democratizing information while facilitating its accessibility even to people who have been censored in various parts across the world especially China.
However, the author pointed out that the Chinese people could not access the most sensitive information about political sites in the Google's sites. The company adopted self-censorship to limit the accessibility of some information by the public. This apparently implies that the company does not adhere to its mission. In order to be consistence with its mission, the company would have ensured that every Chinese citizen would freely access any information he/she requires.
I think that Google should not have entered China and engaged in self-censorship given the company's long-standing mantra "Don't be evil". Though the Chinese government had established its regulations and censorship, the company should have adhered to its mission. Therefore, I think it is true to argue that the company was motivated by the attractiveness of the Chinese market rather than its mission. It viewed the Chinese market as potential...