Google is growing, and GM is trying to get out of bankruptcy.  On the surface there are lots of obvious differences.  Different markets, different customers, different products, different size of company, different age.  But none of these get to the heart of what's different about the two companies.  None of these really describe why one is doing well while the other is doing poorly.

GM followed, one could even say helped create, the "best practices" of the industrial era.  GM focused on one industry, and sought to dominate that market.  GM eschewed other businesses, selling off profitable businesses in IT services and aircraft electronics.  Even selling off the parts business for its own automobiles.  GM focused on what it knew how to do, and didn't do anything else. 

GM also figured out its own magic formula to succeed, and then embedded that formula into its operating processes so the same decisions were replicated again and again.  GM Locked-in on that Success Formula, doing everything possible to Defend & Extend it.  GM built tight processes for everything from procurement to manufacturing operations to new product development to pricing and distribution.  GM didn't focus on doing new things, it focused on trying to make its early money making processes better.  As time went by GM remained committed to reinforcing its processes, believing every year that the tide would turn and instead of losing share to competitors it would again gain share.  GM believed in doing what it had always done, only better, faster and cheaper.  Even into bankruptcy, GM believed that if it followed its early Success Formula it would recapture earlier rates of return.

Google is an information era company, defining the new "best practices".  It's early success was in search engine development, which the company turned into a massive on-line advertising placement business that superceded the first major player (Yahoo!).  But after making huge progress in that area, Google did not remain focused alone on doing "search" better year after year.  Since that success Google has also launched an operating system for mobile phones (Android), which got it into another high-growth market.  It has entered the paid search marketplace.  And now, "Google takes on Windows with Chrome OS" is the CNN headline. 

"Google to unveil operating system to rival Microsoft" is the Marketwatch headline.  This is not dissimilar from GM buying into the airline business.  For people outside the industry, it seems somewhat related.  But to those inside the industry this seems like a dramatic move. For participants, these are entirely different technologies and entirely different markets. Not only that, but Microsoft's Windows has dominated (over 90% market share) the desktop and laptop computer markets for years.  To an industrial era strategist the Windows entry barriers would be considered insurmountable, making it not worthwhile to pursue any products in this market.

Google is unlike GM in that

1. it has looked into the future and recognizes that Windows has many obstacles to operating effictively in a widely connected world.  Future scenarios show that alternative products can make a significant difference in the user experience, and even though a company currently dominates the opportunity exists to Disrupt the marketplace;
2. Google remains focused on competitors, not just customers.  Instead of talking to customers, who would ask for better search and ad placement improvements, Google has observed alternative, competitive operating system products, like Unix and Linux, making headway in both servers and the new netbooks.  While still small share, these products are proving adept at helping people do what they want with small computers and these customers are not switching to Windows;
3. Google is not afraid to Disrupt its operations to consider doing something new.  It is not focused on doing one thing, and doing it right.  Instead open to bringing to market new technologies rapidly when they can Disrupt a market; and
4. Google uses extensive White Space to test new solutions and learn what is needed in the product, distribution, pricing and promotion.  Google gives new teams the permission and resources to investigate how to succeed – rather than following a predetermined path toward an internally set goal (like GM did with its failed electric car project).

Nobody today wants to be like GM.  Struggling to turn around after falling into bankruptcy.  To be like Google you need to quit following old ideas about focusing on your core and entry barriers – instead develop scenarios about the future, study competitors for early market insights, Disrupt your practices so you can do new things and test lots of ideas in White Space to find out what the market really wants so you can continue growing.

Don't forget to download the new, free ebook "The Fall of GM: What Went Wrong and How To Avoid Its Mistakes"