Analysis of Googles Culture - Case Study Example

? Case Studies CASE STUDIES Case Study Google’s Culture As Google expands and becomes bigger, they will find it more difficultto maintain their culture of innovation. Google attempts to keep their culture of entrepreneurship going through the formation of small teams for innovation that act as individual start-ups (Marion, 2013). The company employs over seventeen thousand diverse workers across the world from different cultures, all of whom are expected to continuously innovate. Although they have a flat structure of management, their processes are structured with a tolerance for chaos and a consensus culture. The qualities Google possesses; creativity, passion, taking risks, self-motivation, and self-management successfully attract the best talent around. This culture of controlled chaos is maintainable, although it may suffer if Google’s management begins to prioritize profits in the long term over innovation by being too rigid. Without a hierarchy, Google maintains teamwork and coordination across its engineering, marketing, product management, operations, and sales divisions (Marion, 2013). However, with increasing employee numbers and the hiring of mid-level managers, it is possible that they could suffer from international inconsistency, lack of visibility, delayed decision-making and increased bureaucracy. Bureaucracy is one threat to the maintenance of the organized chaos culture. As Google continues to grow and expand, they may have to come up with new guidelines and policies for the management of their employees, which could hurt innovation (Marion, 2013). Bureaucracy may increase if the diverse employee base does not comply with the vision and mission at Google. For this reason, they may have to control these elements via new policies and procedures, which could impact on other groups’ agility. Internal tools and meetings could become impossible to carry out as the geographical locations become more diverse and unfeasible. Decision-making may also be affected as the employee base increases, especially given the unfeasibility of consensus and open discussion. They could also lose the ability to oppose decisions, take risks, and critique the decisions (Marion, 2013). Achieving cross-functional decisions may prove harder, while they may also stall the mechanism of innovation. The culture of organized chaos may also lead to decreased visibility as workers spending a fifth of their working hours on project ideas may lead to role duplication. Reinvention of the wheel, productive time loss, and replication of effort may lead to decreased visibility due to the difficulty of maintaining an employee base that is multi-cultural (Marion, 2013). A growing and expanding employee base makes it more difficult to establish visibility. Finally, Google could suffer from decreasing international consistency as it becomes harder to attract and retain talent at locations across the world. Exporting their culture to other locations and implanting it may clash with local perceptions, tastes, and cultures. In the international context, it will become more difficult for Google to balance cultural homogeneity and diversity (Marion, 2013). These aspects are the threats to the maintenance of Google’s culture of organized chaos. However, their current organized chaos culture suits their innovative nature with the generation of ideas. Google’s founders are still committed to the fostering of an innovative culture in the company. However, while their culture works well in the attraction of talent, they may find it harder to pursue with regards to demand and supply market dynamics (Marion, 2013). As long as Google is able to maintain collaboration, competence, control, and cultivation of values for customer enrichment, business diversification may not hurt their organized chaos culture and the innovation it breeds. They also need to diffuse their current structure of governance, organizational processes, and culture of innovation to new areas of acquisition, while also adapting to change in customer behavior and market dimensions. Finally, as long as they can maintain their culture of web democracy and ensuring they make money without doing evil, it is possible for them to maintain their organized chaos culture that is so important to their innovative spirit (Marion, 2013). Case #2: How Does the Leadership Center Serve as a Center for Change at GE? At the GE leadership center at Crotonville, the organization identifies various traits that are required for their managers and employees to expand into new markets and innovate, while managing change. One of them is external focus, in which they insist that success must be defined through the eyes of the customer, in tune with dynamics in the industry, and has the ability to see around corners (Charan, 2011). They also insist on clear thinkers who solve complex issues through simple solutions, have consistent priorities, and are focused and decisive. Imagination is another trait that GE insists on in the leadership center, insisting that their employees should generate creative and new ideas, take risks, display tenacity, and be open to change (Charan, 2011). The leadership center is able to serve as a change center through the change acceleration, process model. It does this first by teaching their managers to be the leaders of change. Committed and authentic leadership is essential during the change process (Charan, 2011). From the perspective of a project manager, failure is a significant risk if there is a perceived lack of commitment from the leaders to change initiatives. The leadership center also instills GE’s managers with the importance of creating a shared need. For them, resistance should be outweighed by the organization’s need for change. Change should be accompanied by a compelling reason why the change is taking place, resonating with stakeholders and leadership teams alike. The leadership center also insists that change must be accompanied by a legitimate and clear vision from GE’s leaders. This vision needs to be widely shared and understood with the end state described in terms of measurable and observable individual behavior. The shaping of the organization’s vision is probably the most fundamental factor taught at the center with regards to successful initiatives for change (Charan, 2011). The leadership center also instills the need to mobilize commitment. Once there is support from the leadership, a clear vision for what the change means fro the future, and compelling arguments for the change, the leadership center teaches that it is now possible to build momentum by executing a strategy for influence. At this point, the center insists on leveraging the employees who are quick to adopt the change as project pilots as they are less resistant and learn from their mistakes (Charan, 2011). The above lessons from the GE’s Crotonville learning center are about how change should be adopted. However, the center also acts, as a center to teach its managers how change should be made permanent. The center insists on its managers being ready to leverage their early achievements, as well as transferring the knowledge from the pilot project to the broader roll out (Charan, 2011). The change process should also be monitored by setting benchmarks and realizing them. In addition, leaders are also trained to be accountable if there is no tangible progress. Finally, the employees undergoing training at the learning center are instilled with the need to accept changes to structures and systems. GE, as with all other businesses, has underlying structures and systems such as organizational design, resource allocation, development and training, IT systems, and staffing and hiring. These systems are in place in order to support the business’ current state and, if they remain unchanged, they will negate change by reverting to the old system (Charan, 2011). The learning center teaches GE’s managers that change can only become permanent if they can identify how the structures and systems influence what they are attempting to change, which should then be appropriately modified. Case #3: The Dim Lighting Company 1. Problems a. Macro The changes in the industry have necessitated the question as to whether the organization will bide their time, waiting for the situation in the company to improve to come up with new products, or become proactive. The company also has to deal with whether to be reactive and stick to their current plan, while attaining the necessary tools to get instant results (Brown, 2012). b. Micro Jim West has to deal with a significant decision on the company’s finances, which will impact his career. While he could gain immediate returns by upgrading and repairing the current production, it is possible that this will only be a short-term measure. Although top management is enthusiastic about the proposal from Spink, they are not ready to avail required capital for a project with only 70% chance of success with first profits in the 3rd year (Brown, 2012). It is also likely that Spink may leave his position as Dim Lighting’s R&D director if the top management does not follow his proposal to micro-miniaturize the lighting sources. 2. Causes While Spink has numerous awards, and he is the most valuable asset in Dim Lighting’s R&D department, he has already told them that the reason he left his last job was due to their lack of innovative and creative support. In addition, the company may stagnate and find it hard to meet operating targets and improve profit margins if they do not develop new products for them to offer to customers (Brown, 2012). 3. Systems Affected i. Psychosocial: There is a feeling among the other managers that Spink is impatient, too strong willed, and autocratic, which makes them feel threatened. ii. Structural: The Company’s old functional structure is not supportive of the development of fresh and new products and ideas, especially the requirement to get approval from headquarters. iii. Managerial: Jim West is trapped between the need to achieve results immediately and being innovative and moving forward. iv. Technical: The Company requires additional funding in order to do an upgrade on its technology. v. Values and goals: There is an ambivalent attitude at headquarters regarding whether they need new content and technology since the old one is working. The previous year’s statistics, however, show that missed operating targets and profit margins indicate the need for a change. 4. Alternatives i. There should be an attempt to contact corporate headquarters again with another presentation as to the importance and significance of R&D to the Company, as well as the need for funds for the R&D department (Brown, 2012). ii. Jim West should attempt to get Spinks and Preston to work closer together and see if they can reduce costs with the proposal, after which he can present a case scenario to headquarters. iii. Should the additional funding for R&D not be availed, funds for the upgrade and repair of the product line should be availed to eliminate missed operating costs and lost profits for one year (Brown, 2012). 5. Recommendations Jim West should give Spinks the truth about the Company’s current position in terms of finance, as well as his employment plans should headquarters decline funding (Brown, 2012). He should also make Spinks aware of the manner in which he is perceived by fellow directors, while also affording him the chance to be friendlier and win over the rest of the staff in support of the ideas he is trying to get across. For the organization to survive and be competitive in the future, it should avail funds and use the R&D department. If headquarters does not believe in Spinks’ proposal, they should fund the required improvements and repairs of the production line (Brown, 2012). References Brown, D. R. (2012). Experiential approach to organization development. Upper Saddle River, N.J: Pearson Education. Charan, L. (2011). The Game Changer: How Every Leader Can Drive Everyday Innovation. London: Profile Books. Marion, R. (2013). The edge of organization: Chaos and complexity theories of formal social systems. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publ. Read More