Organizations and Behavior: Google Work Environment - Dissertation Example

 Organizations and Behavior: Google Work Environment Task 1 (LO 1): Examine the structure and culture present at Google. What were the advantages and disadvantages of this type of structure and culture? Use theory to explain the structure and culture at Google further and also to support your analysis. As Miles & Snow (2003) says, the organizational structure is very important for any organization and determines how the organization will succeed, or fail. The organization style and management structure at Google can be said to have advantages and disadvantages. Having an open organization structure is beneficial to the firm as this makes it possible to be talent-oriented as opposed to having a structure that favors structure as opposed to talent development. This structure is very useful for a technology firm like Google. Technology firms have to deal with a very dynamic environment and there is no particular structure that can be said to fit the needs of the organization. Continued creativity and innovation must be the order of the day for technology firms like Google. As a result, they have to continually innovate new products failure to which it might lose the battle to protect its market. The structure at Google makes it possible for all types of employees to be welcome and to feel that they are appreciated. Because everyone’s contribution is regarded with the same level of importance, even new and budding talent is encouraged and this makes it easy for the firm to be able to continue its innovation. The structure and culture makes it easier for the firm to continue being the leader of innovation. Above, fig 1.0., pictograph showing Google’s innovation over the years. Source; https://nbry.wordpress.com/2011/07/26/unleashing-google-norms-running-the-rapid-innovation-engine According to Kozami (2002), the structure does not have to be a traditional structure, as long as it works for the organization. Even though some critics have argued that Google has not invented anything that is a big deal today, it would be wrong to argue that innovation at Google has declined. What Google has done is to focus not on inventing new inventions to replace its search engine, but to invent new technologies to complement its search engine. Google must not be seen as just a search engine today. This is because unlike most search engines such as yahoo and Bing from Microsoft, Google has very advanced tools that go along with its search engine such as Google Earth and Google maps. Arguing that Google has not invested a next big thing while it has invented the Google Earth and the Google Maps as well as the Google Street View may be an inaccurate suggestion. Google is a firm that was based on the need to make information, all types of information to be available to all people at all time. Its inventions can therefore only go towards this. At the same time, Google has been at the forefront of inventing an unmanned car and although this project has not had as much success as would have been expected by this time, it has made tremendous steps. All these inventions and innovation have been attributed to Google’s organizational structure that enables every talent in the firm to be harnessed as opposed to what would happen in other firms that use the traditional hierarchical structure. Fig 1.2, graph showing the growth rate of Google’s growth. Google continues to grow even without new disruptive innovations. Source: http://www.wordtracker.com/academy/learn-seo/videos/why-seo-important Of course, there are some disadvantages that come with such a structure. For instance, some people like to work in a structured environment where power and authority is clearly seen. The traditional structure makes it easier for management functions such as reporting and which is an upward communication and commanding and delegation which are downward communication. By having a flat organizational structure where everyone has a say, these kinds of communication are not possible and this makes it harder for the firm to achieve some of its goals. Google assumes that all the benefits associated with a flat structure will be achieved by using this structure, however, this is to usually the case and in most cases, it might be that the firm is missing a lot of opportunity and this is very critical for firm. It might be that this structure was more useful for the firm when it was a new firm. But now that it is a big firm that has become the world’s largest technology firm, a structured organizational structure may be more appropriate for the firm. Task 2 (LO 2): Examine the structure and culture present at Google. What were the advantages and disadvantages of this type of structure and culture? Use theory to explain the structure and culture at Google further and also to support your analysis. According to Case (1995), the management style of the leaders in a firm can determine where the firm will go in terms of its growth. The management style at Google is very different from any other firm. Management at Google give’s the employees an almost total autonomy with regard to the function they carry out in the firm. While the management style may not give the firm some of the advantages that traditional management styles may give a firm, it also has a number of advantages. The management style at Google is a more democratic style of management and this means that the firm is able to help the employee increase their desire to work. Employees are provided with freedom to do what they feel is important and what they feel that will be the most advantageous to the firm in its growth. Traditional management styles do not give the firm the ability to achieve the highest level of innovation. Lallo (2004) says that the management style of a manager can determine the human behavior and thus motivation. More so, human behavior theory indicates that humans can be more innovative, more productive when they are given autonomy with regard to the functions they carry out in the firm (Geoyfrey, 2013). This means that the employees at Google are more likely to be motivated as opposed to the situation where they would have a structured work atmosphere that does not allow them to have autonomy in ha they do. The management style at Google means that all the employees are permitted to contribute to the leadership and titles do not matter as much as one’s contribution to the firm. The managers are able to hear from the employees and the employees are able to interact with the managers in a positive way. This makes information communication even easier and this has an advantage of the firm because the power distance between managers and subordinates is minimized. However, the management style at Google can be a risk in cases where the employees are not self efficacious and do not have the drive to be able to achieve on their own. Yet, there can never be a guarantee that these types of employees will not be in any firm regardless of how the firm is so careful in having a rigorous recruitment process to screen anyone joining the firm in order to determine if they fit the organizational human resource needs. As a result, it is imperative to make sure that there is a need to ensure that this kind of bottleneck does not occur at Google. Unlike the management style at Google, the traditional management styles are more directive, giving the subordinates administration with regard to what needs to be done and when. While these types of management are very good for a firm where the employees need to be directed, it has its own disadvantages in that it assumes that the managers know everything that is necessary for the firm. Unfortunately, this is never the case and in most cases, the employees may have a better understanding of what may be good for the firm. Many firms have benefited from giving lower level employees the chance to be their own boss and to pursue their goals as long as these goals are in line with the strategy of the firm. Google is one such firm that has benefited from this kind of management that gives the power tote employees and that does not intrude too much in the employee’s daily activity. Above, fig 1.3, graph showing a comparison between Google and another technology firm, facebook.com. Source; http://bmimatters.com/ Task 3 (LO 3): Use motivation theories to explain how employees might be motivated at Google. Can you explain the lack of the continuation of the enormous creativity initially demonstrated at Google through motivation theory? One of the most formidable motivation theories identifies that human motivation is affected by two main factors (Donnel, 2012). The first factor is that it is hierarchical which means that the factors that affect the human motivation keep graduating from one level to the other. The other factor that affects human motivation is the needs-based motivation. For instance, in any firm, the factors that will affect the motivation of an entry level employee are not the same that will affect the motivation for a manager, or the executives. According to Werner and DeSimone (2011), motivation is a necessary part of human resource management in order for the employees to be productive in terms of both production and creativity. The entry level employee may be motivated by the salary while a manger of the executive may be driven by different factors such as launching a new product in order to leave a legacy in the firm. Based on this understanding of motivation theory, it may be understood why motivation at Google may have shriveled as time went on. The management style at Google does not support the kind of atmosphere that allows this kind of motivation to happen. For instance, the employees at the managerial level may not be motivated to perform more since the management style at Google does not necessarily recognize the individual contribution of the managers. As a result, a manager who seeks to leave behind a legacy will not have the right motivation since the contributions at they leave behind may not as appreciated as they would want it to be (Kovach, 1996). The same happens to the employees. As identified, for an entry level or any lower level employee, the growth trajectory for their career is not imminent and this means that they are not motivated to flow this path. Entry level employees are able to be already too comfortable at the entry level and this may make them too comfortable as to not want to pursue more achievements. Additionally, the fact that they are given almost total autonomy in the attempt to help them to be more creative may be working against the needs of the firm. For instance, all employees at Google are given at least 20 percent free time for them to pursue their own plans as long as these projects are in line with the strategy of the firm. This was intended to make sure that the firm continues to get more innovative products. Whether this has helped the firm to get these innovative products from this strategy is debatable in that critics argue that Google has not invented a big product since its initial invention of the search engine, and that the only small inventions that the firm has invented are usually replication of what other smaller firms have invented. In this regard, it may appear that Google’s strategy for motivating the employees to be more creative and more innovative is necessarily working for the firm. Google even provides free laundry services and free gourmet meals to the employees so that they can concentrate on just their technical work as opposed to the having to do the menial jobs. It also provides its employees who have children with day care services. While this is geared towards promoting innovation, it may be that these employees are to comfortable to be nudged to their creative end. The old saying, “necessity leads to all invention” can be used to define why Google’s work place has not helped it to be very innovative. For instance, when the employees are in desperate need to improve their lives, they will be more creative and thus bring in more innovation. Above, fig 1.4 showing the number of failed Google projects over the years. Source; http://priceonomics.com/post/46028291791/digging-around-in-the-google-graveyard However, when their lives, (both social and career) are too comfortable as can be seen in Google, the end result is that their creative genius will relax and they may not be as innovative as it is theoretically expected for them. This is why Google may continue to suffer from lack of “next big thing” kind of innovation in the future. Task 4 (LO 4): From the information given, to what extent is the role of teams and team-building important at Google? Use theories about teams to support your analysis. According to Searle and Skinner (2011), team building is very important for any human resource to be effective. Yet, Google seems to focus more in on the individual as opposed to the teams. Although the role of teams is recognized, the structure of the firm seems to concentrate more on individual talent as opposed to the teamwork. There are several factors that make it harder for the firm to be able to develop team work. The fist is the organizations structure which allows individuals to pursue individual projects. This makes it more difficult for the firm to be able to develop good strong teams. For any team to be able to grow strong and achieve its goals, they need to have a unifying goal that makes them to want to work together. This makes it simpler for the firm to be able to develop strong team. However, with regard to Google’s organizational structure, it is almost impossible for the firm to be able to do this because there is not that glue that holds teams together. The second factor that makes it harder for Google to have strong teams is leadership structure. The organizational structure affects the leadership structure in a firm. In this regard, since the organizational structure and management style at Google uses a flat structure where there is no hierarchy, it is even harder for the firm to be able to create the kind of leadership that is needed in a team. In any team, even in the cases where the team members are given a high level of autonomy, there needs to be very clear leadership that makes it possible for the team to gain the kind of strength that it needs in order to perform. This kind of leadership is almost impossible to develop at Google due to its strategy and its organizational structure. As a result, it becomes very for team development to be able to happen at Google. The other factor has to do with culture. Google uses an open culture where everyone is allowed to be themselves. They can go to work in informal mode of dressing and they can even bring their own pets to the office. Above, fig 1.5 graph showing the lifetime of most Google products that have been scrapped off. Source, http://priceonomics.com/post/46028291791/digging-around-in-the-google-graveyard Needless to state, this can be a problem since not everyone likes the same thing. Some people may for instance be allergic to pets while others may prefer a more formal work environment. Allowing employees to come to work in informal dressing may mean that some will take it too far and this will mean that some people offended. It is these little differences in people that make team building to be very difficult and to be almost impossible. As a result, Google workplace may not bring in harmony that is useful for a team. For any team to work, everyone in the team has to compromise on something and try to be as close to the average expectations of the individual in the team. This is easier to achieve in a formal work environment where the thing sot be expected are standard, such as a formal way of dressing, a formal way of communication and less of social life outside of work. This is not achievable in a kind of work environment that Google offers its employees. For instance, if a team of engineers are working on a project and some of them decide to come to work in an extremely informal dressing that may offend the others, or even to bring their pets to work, there may be misunderstanding of among the employees. As Neider and Schriesheim (2005) says, it is good to note that in any team, the things that may affect the team to not be able to work together may not even be job related. These are usually social issues that come up and the particular team may not be able to work together. Definitely, a formal work environment helps to shed off these issues and only remain with some work related issues. An informal work environment such as the one provided by Google is definitely likely to increase by a very big factor the number of social issues that may affect team development in a negative way. Bibliography Case, J. (London, UK). Open-book Management: The Coming Business Revolution. New York, NY: Harper Business. Donnel, P. (2012). Human Motivation, Building on Maslow's Theory. New York, NY: Pearson Book Publishers. Geoyfrey, P. (2013). Motovation and Human Behavior; A Handbook for Modern Managers. Hoboken,NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Kovach, A. (1996). Strategic Human Resource Management. New York, NY: University Press of America. Kozami, A. (2002). Business Policy and Strategic Management,2e. New York, NY: Tata McGraw-Hill Education. Lallo, M. (2004). A Street Wise Managers Guide to Success in the Restaurant Business. New York, NY: Productive Publications. Miles, R., & Snow, C. (2003). Organizational Strategy, Structure, and Process. New York, NY: Stanford University Press. Neider, L., & Schriesheim, C. (2005). Understanding Teams: Research in management. New York, NY: IAP Publishing. Searle, R., & Skinner, D. (2011). Trust and Human Resource Management. London, Uk: Edward Elgar Publishing. Werner, J., & DeSimone, R. (2011). Human Resource Development. London, UK: Cengage Learning. Read More