Employee Motivation in the Management Field of Google Inc - Case Study Example

Management Case Study: Google Inc Introduction Management is the element in organizations that deals with the running of activities and endeavours of people to achieve the organizations’ objectives using available resources. Management practices take account of planning, organizing, staffing, and controlling an innovative project to achieve an objective. As a corollary, management entails the exploitation of the human capital of an organization so as to make the organization’s projects successful. Mansar and Reijers (2007) reckon that management in and organization should ensure effective communication, employee motivation and alignment of employee activities to the achievement of the organization’s objectives. This can be construed to mean that management is not the handling of machines/automated program, but handling humans through communication, and an assenting enterprise endeavour. This paper seeks to elucidate on issue of employee motivation in the management field. This will be achieved by conducting a case study on one of the largest corporation in the world (Google), while linking management theories to management practices in that corporation. Brief overview of Google Google is an American conglomerate, which specializes in providing internet-based services such as: search engine service, cloud computing, manufacture and sale of software, as well as online marketing services. Most of Google’s profits come from Ad-Words. Its hasty growth since incorporation has elicited production of a series of merchandises, multiple acquisitions, and mergers. As a result, Google is one of the corporations with the largest employee base in the world of around 37,000 in 40 countries. Management Practices Regarding Employee Motivation in Google Inc Contemporary conglomerates are relentlessly coming up with new management techniques to acquire top talent, keep hold of that top talent, and come up with imaginative ways to keep them motivated so as to achieve paramount productivity in their respective industries. This essay investigates how Google Inc uses management techniques to motivate its employees to become top-producing individuals who can formulate preeminent ideas and products. The essay will explore how Google Inc has structured its management so as to endow its employees with the best environment and how it motivates them with intrinsic and extrinsic techniques. The essay will also investigate on how effective the management techniques adopted by Google Inc have been in streamlining the employees’ effort in the direction of realizing the corporation’s objectives. So as to come up with a comprehensive and quality case study, this essay will explore some of the theories of management so as to get acquainted with the theoretical approaches favoured most in Google Inc’s management practices. Management Theories & Concepts Management theories are put into practice in organizations to help in the augmentation organizational productivity and improve service quality (Kappelman 2010). It is rare to find managers implementing only one theory or concept when executing management strategies. According to Shin and Jamella (2002), managers usually employ a combination of different theories, depending on the organization, objectives of the organization and the employees. Below are some theories of management and how Google Inc. uses them in its management practices. Contingency Theory This theory stresses that managers should make decisions that in accordance with the situation at hand instead of having a ‘one size fits all’ approach in managerial decisions. Drawing reference from this Google Inc recognises that different employees have different needs and the best way of motivating them is finding ways that best suit their endeavours of fulfilling their different needs. As a corollary, Google managers motivate their employees by fashioning their management and motivation strategies to take every employees needs into account. Systems Theory Managers use aspects of this theory in their managerial practices recognize how different systems affect employees and how the employees affect the systems around them. A system is comprised of different parts that must work simultaneously to achieve an objective (Vicente-Lorente and Zúñiga-Vicente 2006). Systems theory is founded on the premise that managers should examine the patterns and events in the workplace before making a managerial. Drawing reference from this theory, Google Inc managers introduced the innovation decision where they allowed employees to spend 20% work time working on their own individual projects. By doing so, they were able to coordinate programs and make the company projects and employees’ individual projects to work as a collective whole for the overall objective of the organization. Chaos Theory Managers use aspects of this theory in their managerial practices recognize that although some activities and circumstances in an organization can be controlled, others cannot. Chaos theory is founded on the premise that change is inevitable and uncontrollable. Drawing reference from this theory, Google Inc managers introduced an innovative system of management, which was aimed at offering simplicity in the work process. In this innovative system of management, there are no real hierarchies and tiny work groups are emphasized when forming teams. Google, Inc. does not advocate for massive groups or complex chains of command. They try to keep their structure flat so as to exploit the creativity of employees. Their lack of official channels reduces bureaucracy hence easing the flow of ideas among the employees. This type of management is very flexible and has the ability to accommodate change regardless of the magnitude of the change. Theory X and Theory Y Managers who believe employees essentially lack ambition and require rewards to enhance productivity are usually following concepts of the Theory X. Conversely, Theory Y is founded on the premise the employees are naturally driven and take responsibility. Managers who lean towards Theory X favour an authoritarian style of leadership and managers who lean towards Theory Y encourage participation from employees. In Google Inc. Managerial, decisions have aspects of both Theory X and Theory Y. Managers in Google offer rewards to employees to enhance productivity and they also encourage participation from employees. Managerial practices in Google Inc. are tailored to make workers know that they are prestigious assets of the company, giving them some freedom to make decisions regarding the company’s activities and catering to their social and financial needs. Conclusion Francesco (2005) reckoned that the process of internationalisation of an organization makes the task of coming up with management and motivation systems that fit the standards and preferences of employees in the different cultures worldwide become more challenging. Indisputably, the process in Google Inc. has been intricate and demanding but the innovative and visionary managerial and motivational strategies it has adopted have proven successful. If companies want to be able to retain top-notch employees and to triumph in the next decade they should take notes from Google Inc. then change their management structure, work environment, and the manner in which they handle their employees. References Francesco, A. M. 2005. Motivation. International organization behavior: text, cases, and skills, 2005, pp. 124-143. Kappelman, L. A. 2010. The SIM guide to enterprise architecture. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. Mansar, S. L., and Reijers, H. A. 2007. “Best Practices in Business Process Redesign: Use and Impact”, Journal of Business Process Management, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 193-213. Shin, N., and Jamella, D. F. 2002. “Business Process Reengineering and Performance Improvement: A Case of Chase Manhattan Bank”, Journal of Business Process Management, Vol. 8, No. 4, pp. 351-363. Vicente-Lorente, J. D., & Zúñiga-Vicente, J. A. 2006. Testing the time -variance of explanatory factors of strategic change. British Journal of Management, 17(2), 93-114. Read More