Influence of Culture and Organization Structure on Employee Behaviour and Engagement on Google - Case Study Example

Influence of culture and organization structure on employee behaviour and engagement on Google Contents Introduction 3 Influence of culture and organization structure on employee behaviour and engagement 3 Influence of culture 3 Influence of organizational Structure 9 Conclusion 10 References 11 Introduction Organizational culture and structure plays a significant role in shaping workplace environment. This study would highlight importance of culture and structure in influencing employee engagement and behaviour within an organization. Google has been taken as an example to reflect upon employee engagement in a real world organization. Google is not only one of the most renowned companies but it adopts strategies to constantly motivate employees. Over the years the company is engaged actively into managing human resources and generating high profit margins. In earlier years, focus was on production, operations, etc., but in recent scenario the main focus has shifted towards effectively managing human resources. Human resources are considered to be most valuable asset by Google. Employee engagement is another aspect of workplace motivation. Motivation is a psychological contract as it helps to drive employees towards a common goal or objective. There are different factors through which employees are motivated to perform well in an organization. Culture outlines those factors that link management with team members. Workplace relationship is developed on basis of appropriate organizational culture and structure. This study would encompass wide array of theoretical frameworks in order to analyze the organizational scenario at Google. Relevant management and organizational perspectives would be included within this particular study. Influence of culture and organization structure on employee behaviour and engagement Influence of culture Organizational culture mainly highlights beliefs, principles or values of organizational members. It is a pattern of assumptions and collective behaviours that are incorporated within an organization. Hence it can be stated that success of Google is dependent on its organizational culture. As per the case study, human resource is an essential asset of Google. Chaos management is undertaken by the firm in order to retain superior talent in the system. Culture is closely knitted with workplace motivation. Taylor’s model is able to demonstrate the concept of motivation. Taylor’s theory on motivation indicated that individuals who were offered more incentives, salary, or financial rewards were more productive in comparison to those who did not receive any monetary value. Money is often regarded as the sole motivator for workforce. Taylor even outlined that incentives tend to make individuals more productive in long run, and it is beneficial for organizational growth (Boxall and Purcell, 2003). “Googley” way is a sustainable approach and it encompasses maintaining casual behaviour of workers for improved performance. High incentives along with free meals and other facilities are offered to employees. It is a mechanism to engage employees in the organizational system. The culture at Google indicates its openness in workplace practices and shifting employees between various job positions. Employee behaviour has been greatly influenced by this cultural aspect since team members are motivated to undertake challenges and gain high incentives. Team members are well aware about the concept of reward system in Google and this influences them to contribute innovative ideas. Henry Fayol was able to highlight different dimensions of management. The term management encompasses wide array of factors like planning, organizing, commanding, co-ordinating and controlling (Price, 2007). A planned structure is followed at Google and it resembles structuring a productive workforce. Top management of the company is actively involved in controlling and coordinating team members. Control is exercised not through developing a rigid structure but enabling flexibility within the system. Casual workplace behaviour and existence of additional employee benefits encourages employees to contribute effectively towards organizational practices. The concept of Fayol holds significance in relation to Google in terms of implementing the ‘Google Way’ strategy. In this strategy employees are not only provided flexibility to adopt best possible practices but they are given new challenges which might facilitate them to excel in their respective fields. Employee behaviour towards an organization can only be altered when team members feel they are being valued by an organization (Parker, 2000). Sense of ownership is an essential factor when it comes to employee motivation. This factor is enhanced by management by bringing forth coordination amongst team members. On the other hand, it is an important component determining organizational culture. Elton Mayo designed an employee motivational theory and its impact of organizational culture. There were different parameters discussed in this model which governs overall motivation of an employee. They are psychological contract, interest in employees, insisting on group activities, socializing, recognition and communication. All these parameters are strongly associated with business operations at Google. Recognition and group activities are common phenomenon in the organization. The company actively indulges into resolving employee related issues (Brewster, 2008). This forms the basic organizational culture of Google where team members do not work under strict regulations. Employee engagement is influenced through this form of culture in which different departmental members engage in organizational operations. Management has designed a culture where employees will always stay motivated to undertake difficult tasks. Socializing as per Elton Mayo forms a critical aspect, by which members of different departments share their meals or work collaboratively to accomplish common goals (Adkins and Caldwell, 2004). Organizational culture is of various types such as rigid structure or hierarchical structure where power flows from top to bottom, and an open structure where power is distributed equally amongst all departments. Google has clearly adopted an open organizational framework where employees are given liberty to exhibit actions and contribute their creative thoughts or ideas. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is another model which determines key factors involved in motivating employees. Culture represents beliefs and an organization needs to incorporate beliefs or attitudes of all employees to facilitate growth. For instance, a workplace culture which focuses only on safety or belonging needs is not able to influence the level of employee engagement to a great extent. The model designed by Maslow has been further elaborated in figure 1. Figure 1: Maslows Hierarchy of Needs (Source: Paauwe, 2009) According to figure 1, there exist different categories of needs. Self esteem and belonging needs are two vital components being focused on by Google. The company is inclined towards maintaining a wide base of satisfied workers. Social needs are fulfilled by developing strong interpersonal relationships amongst team members (Paauwe, 2009). This strongly influences employee behaviour since individual interest is given less priority and more importance is given to collective behaviour or team work. Employees work as a team in order to accomplish corporate goals or objectives. Barnard theory explains that when employees or subordinates obey the leaders or managers then only authority is established. If the subordinates do not obey the managers or leaders then they will not have any authority. This theory emphasizes on the interest and willingness of the staffs to obey their managers. According to this theory there are four factors which influence the employees to obey their seniors. The organizational member should understand communication. They have to accept that communication needs to be consistent with company’s purpose. Another important factor is the actions of the employees must be consistent with desires and needs of other employees. The last factor is the staffs need to feel that both physically and mentally they can carry the order. Establishment of these four factors influences employee’s behaviour and their willingness to obey managers. In Google this theory is effective to certain extent. The organizational structure of this company supports strong communication among the organizational members. But the employees of this company do not have to strictly obey their managers and leaders. They consult with the managers and work according to their ideas. Each and every employee of Google works as per their own needs and requirements. Managers do not interfere in employees work. The employees carry out the works which are designed by them or by their team as per their skills and capabilities. This theory explains that there is no particular or best way to develop and organize a company, making decisions or to lead different processes of an organization. The actions and functions of organizational members depend mainly on external and internal business situations. This theory states that there are no definite rules for managing organizations. So the management of the company needs to develop business processes in such a way which balance and satisfy different needs and requirements of employees. This theory states that different situational factors and variables influence performance of employees and organizational design. Contingency theory highlights that strong relationship between leaders and organizational member is established if they respect and accept the leaders. Google has implemented contingency theory in its organization (Edvardsson, 2008). This theory has contributed a lot in increasing employee engagement and influenced their behaviour. For the implementation of contingency theory employees of Google can freely work within the company without following strict organizational rules and regulations. In this company the working environment is very friendly. The company provides different types of benefits and facilities to its employees. This influences them to increase the commitment and dedication towards their work. The benefits and facilities vary according to external and internal business environment. Informal mood established in Google helps the employees to work in a stress free way (Hogg, 2001). Employees feel that they are important part of the company. This influences them to engage more with the company. The idea of Fordism is related to the development of assembly work line. This theory was implemented long back in manufacturing huge amount of products. But now a day the theory of Fordism has become obsolete. Companies implement different theories for mass production. The modern organizations are following Post Fordism for developing its business structure. This theory follows economic ways for producing goods and services. According to this theory organizations adopt different changes to improve its business process. For this reason companies introduce different technologies and processes for adapting themselves with these changes (Allen, 2006). The companies which follow this theory have certain characteristics like flatter organizational structure, decentralized leadership, units regulated by individuals, weak power control and horizontal communication. Google follows post Fordism theory. The company has all the characteristics which are mentioned in this theory. Top managers of Google do not pressurize the employees. As a result they feel free to perform their work and develop new products and ideas. The employees can take decisions for performing their works effectively (Leopold, Harris and Watson, 2005). Horizontal communication system in Google increases employee communication and engagement. Influence of organizational Structure The organizational structure of Google contributes a lot in increasing employee engagement. The company follows organic business structure. Google has low complexity in its organizational structure. So the employees have a clear idea about the different hierarchies. The firm follows low formalisation. Organizational environment of Google is very friendly and there are no strict formal rules. For this reason employees enjoy different facilities within the office premise. Informal working environment encourages the employees to develop new ideas. The organizational members of Google freely communicate with each other and develop strong relationship (Hayes, 2010). This helps the company to increase their employee engagement in different organizational functions and activities. Organic organizational structure of Google influences the employees to take part in different challenging jobs. The company maintains decentralised structure. Different teams and functional divisions of Google control the business process. The central authority of the company does not play a vital role here. As a result the employees hold very important position in the company. They are authorised to take different decisions for the growth and development of business (Hiatt and Creasey, 2003). This decentralised structure increases employee engagement and influences their behaviour. Conclusion Human resource plays a vital role in growth and development of the company. For this reason the companies have designed its organizational structure and culture in such a way which provides many benefits and advantages to their employees. In this case study a detailed analysis of Google is done. This company has developed its organizational structure in such a way which motivates its employees to develop new products and services. The company has implemented different strategies which help it to encourage its employees to build strong bonding with the company. The strategies of Google also influence behaviour of its organizational member. In this case study various theories are mentioned which are implemented by this company. All of these theories explain Google’s contribution in engaging employees in its business process. The company follows an informal management style and structure which helps its employees to enjoy different facilities. References Adkins, B. and Caldwell, D., 2004. Firm or subgroup culture: Where does fitting in matter most? Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 25(8), pp. 969–978. Allen, M., 2006. Analysing the organizational environment. UK: Select Knowledge Limited. Boxall, P. and Purcell, J., 2003. Strategy and human resource management. Basingstoke: Plagrave. Brewster, C., 2008. Contemporary issues in HRM: gaining a competitive advantage. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hayes, J., 2010. The Theory and Practice of Change Management. Denmark: Palgrave Macmillan. Hiatt, J., and Creasey, T. J., 2003. Change Management. USA: Prosci. Hogg, M. A., 2001. A social identity theory of leadership. Personality and social psychology review, 5(3), pp.184-200. Leopold, J., Harris, L., and Watson, T., 2005. The Strategic Managing of Human Resources. Harlow: Prentice-Hall. Paauwe, J., 2009. HRM and performance achievements: methodological issues and prospects. Journal of Management Studies, 46(1), pp. 129-142. Parker, M., 2000. Organizational culture and identity. London: Sage. Price, A., 2007. HRM in a business context. London: Thomson Learning. Edvardsson, R., 2008. HRM and knowledge management. Employee Relations, 30(5), pp. 553-561. Read More