Organisational Analysis: Google - Essay Example

?Organisational culture is how people in the organisation behave and act. There are several factors that make the organisational culture and the mostimportant one includes; the values, mission and vision of the organisation, norms, the role of management, systems etc. Organisational culture has an important role to play in not only attracting talented people but in retaining them as well (Denison, 1990). Positive organisational culture encourages employees to give their best and they are able to work at their optimum level. However, if the organisational culture is demoralizing then it can be discouraging for employees and they would not be able to work at their optimum level thus affecting the productivity of the employees and the company (Denison, 1990). This report will analyse the organisational culture of Google and how important the organisational culture of the company has been in motivating employees and making the company a success. Emerging from the minds of two graduate students was the business model by the name of Google. This online search engine company has gone on to become the world’s most craved for workplace to work in for Information technology experts. The strong inclination to work in this company from workers can be gauged from the fact that the company receives around 3000 applications daily. This phenomenal response from workers towards this company makes this company an employer of choice. This proclamation has been earned by this company and there are various reasons behind this. The company’s strong profits and its strong reputation in the marketplace are attributed not only to its innovative products but also to its peculiar organisational culture. It is this unique organisational culture that is drawing the industry’s best talent towards the company (Google Case Study). The way Google organises work in its organisational setting and how its employees go about doing their work lies at the heart of Google’s success. The company is a living embodiment of decentralised approach of management. Innovation and entrepreneurial spirit are the epicentre of the company’s progress in its marketplace. The work atmosphere at Google is extremely friendly and nourishing. The environment that is provided to its employees by Google is wholesome. Employees in a relaxed and friendly work setting go about doing their work. There is no restriction on risk taking behaviour of employees; instead employees are encouraged to take risks and enhance their individual and organisational learning. Even if a risky venture ends up in a failure, the employee undertaking that project is not punished for the failure as long as the project resulted in individual and organisational learning. Most of the organisational work is accomplished in teams. Entrepreneurial spirit lies in the centre of each team. It is these self fulfilling teams which help Google to respond quickly to its changing business environment. The code of conduct, the norms, values and the organisational policies also influence the productivity and performance of the company. Also the behaviour of co-workers and overall work environment is also important in getting better results from the employees (Mils, 1998). In the headquarters of Google, employees have facilities which are truly never heard off. Never in the history of employment, has a company emerged that has provided its employees with an organisational setting that is a close resemblance to and an extension of a household and a university setting. This workplace setting is characterised by informality and joy. The company has no formal dress code and thus employees can wear their home clothes at work. Employees can even bring their pets to work as long as their co-workers are not bothered by them. The company provides multiple cuisines to its employees at lunch and that too at no cost. In addition to dining facility, the company provides its employees with playing facility, a gym, a spa and a laundry and etches. The pay scale of Google’s employees is highly competitive and the company extends special loans to its employees in case they want to buy a house or a car. All these factors coupled together leads to a workplace setting that is characterised by highly motivated and loyal employees. Even in the presence of so many distractions, the employee engagement in this organisation is extremely high. This is one of the reasons why the company is generating a strong performance in its marketplace (Google Case Study). However, to critics this management style is not going to last for long and is starting to show its signs of deterioration. Google that has innovation at the centre of its organisational culture, it turning up with hackneyed products in the marketplace, most of which are already being offered by Google’s competitors. The name of Google is becoming generic, which although is considered by some industry experts to be good, but for others it is bad as it might become a factor that could lead to the downfall of the company. This inference can be drawn from the previous experiences of world class companies like Xerox and Jacuzzi. These companies were the inventors of their category and went on to become a generic name of their category, but they ultimately had to face severe debacles that led to a decline in their market supremacy. For many industry experts the most troubling thing for Google at this stage is its chaos management style that is prone to backfire. Previous researches conduct on this management style ended up with a conclusion that was not in favour of this management style. But in this century, this management style is finding itself useful (Bloisi, Cook, and Hunsaker, 2006). Previously, it was thought that this management style created a work environment that was counterproductive and unhealthy for employees as it diminished their innovative spark (Crowther and Green, 2004), but in this century this style of management is finding unprecedented response from companies like Google, which organises its workplace setting around this management style. Looking at this management style and organisational setup of Google from a management sciences perspective; it can be seen that this organisation is highly decentralised (Hatch and Cunliffe, 2006). All of its work is done in highly motivated and diversified teams. The company is an equal opportunity provider and in no way does it engages in discriminatory practices. The company has sound policies and practices in place, which ensure that no employee engages in workplace deviance behaviour. The organisational culture encourages collaboration between employees, which enables the company to organise work in teams (Huczynski and Buchanan, 2010). The organisation is having a flat organisational structure in place which organises work in self governed teams of highly motivated and skilled individuals. These individuals have complete authority to organise their work, in addition to taking important decisions regarding their work. Since this form organises work in teams, so each team is responsible for setting its own goals and objectives. In this structure, work relationships receive special attention because most of the work is organised in teams and for a well performing team it is imperative that there is harmony existing between team members. Each teams working in Google has diversity in it. The presence of diversity ensures that the creative potential of each team member is maximised. Adherence to this principle is a must for any organisation that is having an organisational structure like Google. After looking at some narrow features of Google’s organisational culture, let’s see how this organisational culture is organised in terms of different management theories. According to Maslow’s hierarchy of need theory (Mullins, 2007), employees at Google are having higher order needs, which are characterised as social, esteem and self actualisation. The social need or dimension of this theory is fulfilled through closely involved teams and friendly and cooperative workplace setting. As far as the need of esteem is concerned, employees at Google receive respect, autonomy, status and recognition from the company. On the other hand by letting individuals explore and workout their true potential, Google satisfies this need of employees. When looking at Google from the perspective of Theory X and Theory Y (Robbins, 2010), it can be seen that the company’s organisational culture is encompassing people falling on the standards of Theory Y, which means that individuals working at Google are those like their work, are creative, seek responsibility, and can exercise self-direction. This is why it is best for Google to merge these individuals in self-governed teams. Looking at the source of Google’s work force motivation from the point of view of Herzberg’s theory (Thompson and McHugh, 2002), shows that the presence of “hygiene factors”, which include factors like high quality work, satisfying pay scale, consistent and clear company policies, refreshing working conditions, strong working relationships, and job security and etch, are the fundamental source of employee motivation. In addition to these factors Google’s management also concentrates on factors such a opportunity for personal growth, recognition, responsibility and achievement. These are the characteristics which people find intrinsically rewarding. From the perspective of ERG Theory, Google’s organisational culture promises to fulfil employees three core needs that are existence, relatedness and growth. Amongst these three needs, “existence” deals with fulfilling an employee’s basic material existence requirement that according to Maslow are an individual’s physiological and safety needs. Google understands the importance of Maslow theory and therefore makes sure that the employees at Google have met their basic existence requirements. The second need that is of “relatedness”, deals with an individual’s desire to maintain important interpersonal relationship. The organisational culture of Google encourages a participative culture and employees feel motivated to share their views. This creates a positive and healthy environment at Google thus Google meets the second needs of Maslow Theory as well. Last but not the least the need of “growth” deals with an individual’s desire for personal development. This need is similar to Maslow’s need of self-actualisation. Google understands the importance of developing and retaining talented employees and therefore the company offers a successful and a growing career to the employees working at Google. The company not only gives them training on a regular basis but ensures that they have a bright career. After looking at the organisational culture of Google, it is clear that it is a living embodiment of these basic needs of individuals. When testing the organisational culture of Google using the theory of David McClelland (Mullins, 2007), it can be seen that other than fulfilling the “need of power”, the organisational culture fulfil an individual’s “need for achievement”. According to the goal setting theory (Mullins, 2007), Google although working in a chaos management style, provides to its workers specific, difficult and worth pursuing goals that are compatible with an employee’s personal capabilities. This in turn is complemented by an individual’s self-efficacy, which is an individual’s belief in himself or herself that he or she is perfectly capable of performing the requirements of the task. Google’s organisational culture according to the principles of Job design theory (Mullins, 2007), consists of those elements that are highly motivating. The most important thing with these elements is that they are organised by Google’s management in a very effective way. This sound organisation of work elements have led to an increase in employees work satisfaction. Important elements of an employee’s job design includes skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and feedback. In case an individual working at Google goes out to compare his or her situation with someone working in a similar capacity at some other place, preferably a search engine website, than he or she will always find himself or herself in a better position. The reason behind this is that Google by offering a highly competitive pay scale and augmenting facilitation, makes it extremely difficult for an employee to undertake such a comparison. Google’s organisational culture is an epitome of distributive justice (perceived fairness of the amount and allocation of rewards among individuals), procedural justice (the perceived fairness of the processes used to determine the distribution of reward). Every Google employee is known to exert his or her full effort because he or she is intrinsically motivated by the drive to perform an outstanding job for the company and for the team they are part of. After analysing the organisational culture of Google from various theoretical frameworks and theories, it can easily be concluded that it is a one of a kind culture. For an organisation to develop this sort of an organisational culture, it needs to have visionaries like the founders of Google and a workforce that matches the personality and skill profile of the workforce of Google. List of References Bloisi, W., Cook, C.W., and Hunsaker, P.L. (2006). Management and Organisational Behaviour, 2nd ed. Maidenhead: McGraw Hill Crowther, D., and Green, M. (2004). Organisational Theory London: CIPD Denison, R. (1990). Corporate culture and organizational effectiveness, NJ, Wiley. Emerald Group. (2007). ‘Googling out of control – can Google’s chaos management style ensure continuing success?’ Strategic Direction, vol. 23, no. 8, pp. 25-27. Hatch, M.J., and Cunliffe, A.L. (2006). Organization Theory: Modern, Symbolic and Postmodern Perspectives, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Huczynski, A., and Buchanan, D. (2010). Organizational Behaviour,7th ed. Harlow: Pearson Education Ltd. Mills, J. (1988). ‘Organization, Gender and Culture’, Organization Studies, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 351-369 Mullins, L.J. (2007). Management and Organisational Behaviour, 9th edition, Harlow: Pearson Education Ltd. Robbins, S.P. (2010). Organizational Behavior, Harlow: FT Prentice Hall. Thompson, P., and McHugh, D. (2002). Work Organisations, London: Macmillan Read More