Googling Out of Control - Case Study Example

Introduction When the company was founded by two in 1998, Google was at that time just another innovative solution in the offing. Quite interestingly, it took only a decade for the company to be a defiant rival to other huge industry players like Microsoft. For instance, as early as 2007, Google had reached an impressive 210 billion dollars worth of stock (Emerald Insight, 2007). The company has kept growing in leaps and bounds over the years. Google is probably the company that receives the highest number of job applications in a year. According to NBC, the company gets at least 1,000,000 applications per year (Larson, 2010). What attracts job seekers to want to join Google is the one of a kind working environment at the company. Google employees have coined a phrase to explain their modes of work – Googley. As reported by the NBC news, the company has also been rated by fortune magazine as the best American company to work for (Larson, 2011). The interesting thing about Google is that it has an organization structure that is flat as opposed to the traditional hierarchical system. One would expect that such a structure would prove counterproductive but Google has clearly proved management experts otherwise. “Googley” Google is a company that embraces a work ethic that is anything but conventional. According to an NBC reporter, the employees at Google are “way too happy.” When doing an interview with the human resource personnel, the reporter posses a rhetoric question, “these people are too happy….seriously, can’t I see a frown here? (Larson, 2010)” It is hard to have a frown as an employee of Google. The company offers the workers such a friendly working environment by providing them with all the luxuries they will need at no extra cost. For instance, the employees have access to a physician right at the office incase they fall sick, there is a gym at the office, they have chefs that fix them five star meals free of charge, they have luxury lounges and even beds to rest if they need to take a nap…the list is endless. This is arguably the epitome of mixing business with pleasure but contrary to what one would expect, it has worked to continue to make Google one of the most profitable companies Google’s structure seems to answer to the contingency theory. The contingency theory states that there is no blanket solution to management of a company. It is thought wise to allow different organizations to develop their own different structures that will work for them in their different environments (Sibbet, 1997). Googley is more than just a work environment at googleplex. It is more of an organization culture. This culture came about as a result of the permissiveness of the two co-founders. In fact, they believe so much in having fun at the work place that when the NBC reporter went to do an interview, he found them in funny costumes. The fun environment is one of the things that have greatly boosted the employee morale. This is clearly in sharp contrast of theory X and Y of management. The theory states that employees are naturally lazy and naturally hate work and they cannot work optimally unless under strict supervision (Sibbet, 1997). Google’s work environment is a free one and employees are allowed to work with minimal supervision People are so happy to work at Google that they don’t seem to mind standing in the rain for a photo shoot by the NBC crew who needed a birds-eye-view photo taken from their chopper. It’s a different work environment that the news anchor at NBC studios jokes that he would love to pass some suggestions on improving the work place in the next staff meeting (Larson, 2010; BrandZ, 2011). Working at Google is almost like extending ones stay at campus. For starters, most of the employees at Google are in their mid twenties or less than thirty and the best way to put the googlying environment is that it is almost like being in college. Only this time, there are no books to read and you are getting paid for having a god time as you work. In fact, employees are allowed to come with their dogs to the office. The work stations are not the traditional cubicles. Employees will often be found seating in small cluster and they will be seating on couches and other types of very comfortable furniture (Emerald Insight, 2007). It is a brisk walk away from Taylor’s theory of management. Taylor believed in scientific management. He believed in having a blanket style of management that works across the board no matter the kind of organization (Taylor, 1911). Official wear has been thought to be one of the ways to establish professionalism and build good cultures in organizations. But this is clearly not the case for Google which has no dress code at all. It’s a fact that would make management thinkers to think again. It beats logic to force a computer programmer to be strapped in a neck tie the entire day and all he will do is seat before his computer screen the entire day. Human relations theory has openly worked for Google. The theory was based on Hawthorne experiments. The experiments discovered that making employees comfortable through provision of coffee breaks and allowing them to work the way they wanted actually resulted to greater productivity. This was of course a deviation from Fayol’s theories (Accel-team, 2011; Stauffer, 1998). Just like Google has demonstrated, if the employees are comfortable, they will ultimately be more productive in discharging their duties. The work environment at Google is fluid. In fact, Google is managed by a triumvirate of the two co-founders and the CEO. Most experts would advise against such a structure but the structure has worked flawlessly for Google if the impressive margin is anything to go by (Emerald Insight, 2007). Google is primarily an internet based company. There is arguably no other industry that is more dynamic than the internet. For Google to keep abreast there is need for continual innovation. Google must have understood innovation can best be achieved in a place that allows a fear free, stress free and passionate work environment. Google therefore developed an organization that is flat and free of pressure and an organization culture that “does no evil.” The innovation is further fueled by a top level management that is closely involved in the day to day work procedures. According to Max Weber, Bureaucracy is the best way to manage an organization. Weber believed that an orderly approach to management was the secret of managing a large organization successfully (Stauffer, 1998). Chaos have always been thought to be bad for the organization but Google is one company that not only embraces chaos, but as it has demonstrated over the years, benefits from it. Management of companies has always been production and sales management. The business environment has however changed drastically owing to the innovations in the ICT field. For instance, business communication has greatly been improved in terms of the volume of correspondence as well as the turn around time thanks to emails, cell phones, facsimiles and photocopiers. The present day work environment is more stressful to the employee than it was a couple of years ago and Google realizes that (Emerald Insight, 2007). The company also focuses on innovations that are produced either by individuals or by small groups of staff. Decisions are often reached to through consensus. The rationale behind this approach is that problems are often as a result of people that are not open to dialogue. Innovations are therefore spurred on the platform of consensus. In fact, engineers usually post the projects they are developing on the organization intranet and the other employees will look at the project during the life cycle and give their comments Google pays its employees to brainstorm experiment and dare to take risks. In fact, the work ethic at Google allows the employees to make mistakes since mistakes are seen as opportunities to learn new lessons. This culture must be founded on the original idea by the co-founders who began Google as an academic project at Stanford. The idea must have sounded outrageous when they suggested that it is possible to have an internet search engine. The employees are therefore allowed to try ideas that seem out of the box Google has an organization structure that is anything but bureaucratic. At the top level management, there are the two co-founders with a CEO. The rest of the organization can be said to comprise of engineers, and the rest of the guys. The organization structure of this type can only work if there is a clear vision for the company and if top management is directly involved in the day to day running of the company. The structure works for Google because they have tremendous trust and respect for each other and the Googlers generally think alike Moreover, the relationship between the top management and Googlers is crucial to foster this ability to criticize and to innovate. The fact that there is no dress code for the employees or exclusive offices for some employees helps the employees to have a sense of safety in the work environment. Even though the engineers are the people responsible for the innovations that keep Google abreast, they are not deemed more important than the other employees. For instance, everyone is allowed to communicate his opinion as to what he/she thinks should be changed Besides, one might think that the company has two unbalanced groups, the engineers and the others. In fact, the information policy within the company makes it fairly evident that the company depends on innovation, and innovation results from the work of engineers. It can therefore be said that Google is an organization that is not too politicized and can actually be seen as an organization that works like a beehive. Proper decision making in any organization is totally reliant on the presence of quality information. A traditional hierarchical structure would make the omnipresence of information at Google very hard to achieve. The flat structure seems to work fine for the company. When information runs in a flat structured organization, it is available for synthesis amongst the coworkers in an organization at the same time. The decision will ultimately be arrived at through a consensus and the final conclusion will in most cases be different even though close, from the original idea that started the discussion. Will chaos management work? The fluid mode of working at Google that is known to the Googlers (employees) as googley makes the Googlers have a sense of belonging in a group of IT experts. The “chaos” management system that is used by Google has been mooted as the best way to manage in the modern dynamic working environment. This management style had actually been suggested even before the launch of Google by Wojick David of the Naval Research. The chaos management style seemed the best solution top naval officers since handling storms was part of their day to day occurrences (Emerald Insight, 2007). Google’s concept of chaos management may however not be sustainable at the end of the day. Google was developed as a dedicated search engine company. The search engine was indeed a ground breaking innovation and it shall continue to be one of the best innovations on the internet. However, Google might well be on its way to the plateau stage on the growth curve before it hits the decline stage. Google gets most of its revenue through its ads program. This is a tricky business since the millions that have to be made are in dimes and quarters. Some experts are afraid that some of Google‘s inventions have not done as well as the competing applications by their rival firms (Stamoulis, 2008). It is therefore feared that as more and more innovations by the rival firms keep coming, Google’s chaos management might turn into a real chaotic environment (Curtis, 2006). Almost every internet user gets to the websites they want become via search engines. Google has continued to be the primary search engine for most of the internet users and today, Google has a verb more than it is a noun. Many people use the term Google when they actually mean search engine. For instance, instead of saying “search for something” they say “Google for something.” This analogy is thought to negatively impact on the Google brand name and it is feared that it could ultimately result in a fall of the share price. Conclusion Human relations theory and contingency theory can be said to be the theories upon which Google runs its day to day operations. They are the foundations upon which Google’s organization culture has been formed. Thanks to the human relations at the company and the free environment created, the employees at Google are allowed to experiment even if their innovations turn out to be a mistake. This environment has kept the spirit of innovation alive at Google. This can be seen as one of the reasons why the company has continued to be profitable even in the light of the recent economic downturn. The contingency theory has helped Google walk away from the bureaucratic style of management. While most organizations are strict disciples of the hierarchical leadership structure, Google has employed a lat structure. In fact, Googlers can be said to be the symbols of the organization’s success. Every Googler is actually part and parcel of the founders’ and CEO’s vision for the company. In most companies, this is rarely the case. In a typical bureaucratic environment, top management is usually seen as the decision making organ and the rest of the company staff are merely implementers of decisions- and in most cases, no questions asked. At Google however, everyone is an equal contributor to decision making. When an engineer starts working on a project, the engineer usually posts the project on the intranet as a way of engaging the other staff in the product life cycle of the project. The discussion that follows will inform the engineers of the changes that need to be made to the application before it can be released into the market. References Accel-team. 2011. Elton Mayos Hawthorne Experiments, [Online] Accessed on December 28, 2011. [Retrieved from http://www.accel- team.com/motivation/hawthorne_03.html] BrandZ. 2011. Top 100 Most Powerful Brands of 2011. [Online] accessed December 26, 2011 [available at htp://www.millwardbrown.com/libraries/optimor_brandz _files/2011 _brandz_top10 0_chart.sflb.ashx] Curtis, L. 2006.Will Google become a victim of its own success? Admap, 41(473), 55-58. Taylor W. 1911. The Principles of Scientific Management, New York: Harper Bros., Emerald Insight. 2007. Googling out of control. Can Google’s Chaos management style ensure continuing success? Strategic Direction. 23(8), 25-27 Larson J. 2010. Work in Google. NBC News. [Online] accessed on December 24, 2011. Available at [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdrctZ3EDPU] Stamoulis, N. 2008. Why Companies Are Upset With Googles Search-Within-Search. Search Engine Optimization Journal. 3 (12), 23-56. Stauffer D. 1998. What You Can Learn from 100 Years of Management Science: A Guide to Emerging Business Practice. Harvard Business Review, 117(34), 45-68 Sibbet D. 1997. 75 Years of Management Ideas and Practice, Harvard Business Review, 9(10), 178-192 Read More