Organisational Culture of Google and How It Impacts Its Operations - Essay Example

Case Analysis: Google’s organisation culture and its way of working Table of Contents Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………3 Work Environment of Google…………………………………………………………………3 Organisation’s culture…………………………………………………………….…...………4 Organisation structure……………………………………………………….………...………5 Team work in the organisation………………………………………………………...………6 Specific issues identified from the case study…………………………………………………8 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………..……..10 References…………………………………………………………………………….……...11 Introduction In order for an organisation to gain a competitive advantage in the market, it is imperative for it to have a good organisational culture. This is beneficial to both the organisation and the employees. As such, this essay seeks to critically analyse the organisational culture of Google and how it impacts its operations. The first part of the essay focuses on evaluating the company’s working environment through an analysis of a case study and the company’s video (Work in Google, 2007). The next part discusses the positive outcomes of organisational culture through the application of relevant theory. The third part critically analyses the structure of Google through applying the Post-Fordism theory. Common characteristics about groups are discussed on the basis of the case study and the video and a conclusion is drawn at the end of the paper. Working environment of Google Employee performance is enhanced by the existence of an effective work environment as illustrated from the case of Google. Google is an American based company that specialises in offering communication technology such as internet services. Since its inception, the company has been guided in its operations by valuing the needs and interests of the employees (Googling out of Control, 2007). The major strength of the organisation, which can be attributed to its culture, lies in its ability to motivate the employees, which has contributed to its productivity. Employees are encouraged to be innovative, and they are rewarded for their ideas. An analysis of the case study as well as the video footage shows that Google is regarded as the best place to work in America as the employees are motivated and their needs and interests are satisfied (Googling out of Control, 2007). Motivation is seen as the key aspect behind the effectiveness of the organisation in its performance since the employees share the same goals with the organisation. For instance, mistakes made by the employees do not warrantee a punishment, but they are treated as an effective tool for learning. Organisation’s Culture According to Stahl & Mendenhall (2005), culture is believed to shape the operations of the organisation in various ways. It contributes to innovation and success, which allows the managers to be able to cope with problems related to adoption as well as integration. Organisational culture at Google is considered to be very effective given that it has recently been named the best company for employees by Fortune Magazine. The core values of the organisation’s culture are intensely held and shared (Robbins, 1993). Due to this, the company has managed to gain a competitive advantage in the market despite facing recurred profits and huge acquisitions. Innovation and creativity are promoted among all the employees across the globe where the company operates. Employees are offered a conducive working environment where they are provided with free meals, free laundry facilities as well as free treatment in the event of an employee falling ill. The organisation’s culture is shared by all members, and they have a strong identity as regards it. For instance, the company does not have a strict dress code, and the employees interact on an informal basis where they are all aware that each employee is treated as a valuable asset to the organisation. Besides providing the employees with a good working environment, the company encourages them to come up with the best ideas that can positively contribute to the performance of the organisation (Googling out of Control, 2007). Creativity is regarded as the best tenet for success in the organisation regardless of the fact that the employees may make mistakes at times. This is achieved through organisational learning. A closer analysis of Google shows that the organization’s culture is wholesome, consistent, and comprehensive; it is comprised of four elements namely: mission, innovation, reward, and fun (Schein, 2010). These four elements are the pillars for organisational success that is embedded in its culture. Organisational culture at Google has played a significant role in helping the organisation to fulfil the needs of the employees as well as the other stakeholders. The employees in particular can meaningfully contribute in the decision making process, and this has resulted in creation of loyalty among them. Organisation Structure Google was named the best company in the US by Fortune magazine as a result of its cross functional structure. According to Huczynksi & Buchanan (2007), organisational structure is a formal system of task and reporting relationships, which enables the management to coordinate, motivate, and control the employees so that they pull their efforts towards the attainment of the goals and objectives of the organisation. It is widely believed that an organisation must have a core management structure in order to gain a sound position in the market. However, an analysis of this case study shows that the organisation has no clear management structure (Mullins, 2007). The key staff members are not strictly structured, and it is evident that the operations of the organisation are unsustainable in the future. Unlike other conventional organisations with a hierarchical structure, power, and control, this organisation treats its employees as equals and encourages their initiative. Employees are encouraged to participate in the vital decision-making processes whereby innovative and creative ideas are given preference. It can, therefore, be said that Google has adopted Post-Fordism theory according to which a flexible working environment is offered to the workforce to promote sustainability and growth of the company (Lister, 2010). Team Work in the Organisation Teamwork in an organisation is regarded as an essential prerequisite of organisational growth given that it enables the employees to coordinate their efforts towards the same direction to achieve the goals of the organisation. In Google, employees are motivated by the organization’s culture and control measures. Rewards are offered to employees who come up with innovative and creative ideas that are later implemented. Robbins (2010) posits to the effect that, if the employees are motivated, they are creative and they contribute to the growth of the organisation. Emphasis in the case of Google is also put on entrepreneurial approach where brainstorming among the employees is encouraged, so that they can find solutions to problems they may encounter in their operations. Employees form the foundation of the organisation and, if they are motivated, they will put optimum performance in their operations. In Google, they are motivated by different factors such as the autonomy; they highly regard the absence of strict control regimes in the company. The concept of accommodative organisational culture can also be linked to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs that states that it is the role of the employer to create a work place environment that enables the employees to fulfil their self-actualization needs in an effective way (Rosdahl & Kowalski, 2008). It is assumed that when the needs of an individual are fulfilled, that person is motivated to perform in the best way. The same can be witnessed at Google whereby the management provides them with flexible working conditions. The culture also encourages the employees to be innovative in their operations. Creativity and innovation allows the workers to come up with the best ideas, which is the best ingredient towards the success of the organisation (Inglehart, 2000). Employee performance is monitored throughout, and any loophole is corrected before it goes out of hand leaving no chance for errors to happen. It can be said that Google follows a post-modern cultural approach in its operations in order to motivate its employees. The members of staff also work in small clusters where there is no direct command of power and control, and this enables them to share their ideas freely with other members of the group. According to Tuckman & Jensen (1977), a small cluster group is created where the employees focus on three aspects related to increasing productivity in the organisation, promoting innovation and formation of new business. The employees undertake challenging roles and they work as a team in order to achieve maximum profit through the utilisation of low cost methods of production. Group theory, which includes forming, storming, norming, and performing (Tuckman & Jensen, 1977), is used in this particular organisation that enhances organisational effectiveness. Google does not have a hierarchical structure though it takes various challenging roles depending on the needs of the company. Work is delegated according to the skills and knowledge of the employees. Though overall productivity can be hampered as a result of conflicts that are likely to be witnessed in the organisation, it can be noted that the groups at Google work together in a harmonious way. Specific issues identified from the case study Google’ operations are unsustainable in the long run due to the absence of a hierarchical structure despite having a good organisational culture. It has been observed from the case study that Google specially focuses on its present operations and is not in a position to show its next idea. Its main concern is to attract more customers to its sites in order to create more revenue. The company has shifted from its original aims and this aspect is a weakness to Google given that competition is increasing in this particular sector (Googling out of Control 2007). There is need for the management to encourage the employees to develop new products in order to stay ahead of competition in the market. Product development can enhance sustainability of the organisation in the future. It has also been observed that the structure of the organisation at Google is not effective. The organisation does not follow a flexible structure whereby it has been observed that chaos management system is followed at the workplace, which is seen as the only way to manage information in the contemporary business environment. It can be said that no straight procedure is followed at the workplace and that is problematic at times as it may be difficult to control the operations of all employees. However, if an organic structure is followed in the organisation, this place can be minimised whereby problem sharing can be implemented. The other issue faced by Google is related to formulation of generic teams. It may be difficult for the teams to work in large groups. This can be solved through development of cross-functional teams where members from the same hierarchical structure are considered while their functions may be different. Teams comprising of more than ten members can allow the members to work in a large group. Conclusion It can be noted that in spite of facing high acquisitions as well as recurred profits, Google has been in a position to achieve growth as a result of its innovative and creative culture. According to Forbes Magazine, Google is a killer place to work in America given that the company’s culture is flexible and it is also accommodative to a wide range of employees from diverse backgrounds. Employees put maximum performance in their operations since they have flexible working conditions. However, it has been observed that the strategy followed by Google is unsustainable as a result of the absence of a hierarchical system. There is need for the organisation to address this issue in order to minimise the chances of conflicts within it. References Crowther, D. and Green, M. 2004. Organisational Theory. CIPD Publishing. Googling out of Control. 2007. Emerald Group Publishing Limited 23 (8), pp. 25-27. Huczynski, A and Buchanan, D. 2010. Organizational Behaviour. Pearson Education Ltd. Inglehart, R. 2000. Globalisation and Postmodern Values. The Washington Quarterly 23 (1), pp. 215-228. Lister, R. 2010. Understanding Theories and Concepts in Social Policy. The Policy Press. Mullins, L. 2007. Management and Organisational Behaviour. Pearson Education Ltd. Pride, W., Hughes, R. and Kapoor, J. 2011. Business. Cengage learning. Robbins, S. 2010. Organizational Behavior. FT Prentice Hall. Rosdahl, C. and Kowalski, M. 2008. Textbook of Basic Nursing. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Schein, E. 2010. Organizational Culture and Leadership. John Wiley and Sons. Stahl, G. and Mendenhall, M. 2005. Mergers and Acquisitions: Managing Culture and Human Resources. Stanford University Press. Tuckman, B. and Jensen, M. 1977. Stages of Small-Group Development Revisited. Stages of Small-Group Development Revisited 2 (4), pp. 419. Work in Google. 2007. [Online]. Available at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdrctZ3EDPU [Accessed on: 29 November 2011]. Read More