The Structure and Culture of Google - Case Study Example

ORGANISATION AND BEHAVIOUR By Location Organisation and behaviour Task The structure and culture of GoogleAs any other organization that focuses on development and growth, Google applies a structure and culture that is fairly functional by having positions in the management that help in the running of the same. Further, Google also focuses on value chain mostly as part of ensuring that it remains functional and relevant to the market that it operates in. Google is a company that upholds diversity as part of its able workforce since it has operations in many parts of the world in which the company also has grouped itself into regions to help in the efficient running of operations. As part of its organizational structure, Google also applies a multidivisional structure which includes the clustering of the regions in terms of geographical regions and also in terms of their product markets. The advantage that this presents is that this structure helps in ensuring that Google undertakes well planned operations across regions as much as the company is a global giant in the IT industry. The company slogan also says it all, “Do not be evil” as recommended by Buchheit Paul, which, according to him was a form of communication to both Google employees and their competitors (Hamen 2011, p. 53). The slogan communicates about the importance of working cohesively rather than focusing on backstabbing and other evil practices in order to accomplish the desired organizational goals. This makes Google to have a unique code of conduct and culture as it focuses more on people rather than on work related issues. Additionally, Google is also known for the good way that it treats and values its employees, which has influenced the company to be in the list of the best performing companies in America. For one, Google does not have a specific dresscode for its employees as this influences employees to be at ease and not worry much about their appearances as only their productivity matters (Gully & Phillips 2011, p. 482). Therefore, Google eliminates all barriers that can hinder its employees from being more productive, which also includes providing employees with free lunch that influences them to feel valued by the company. The type of work environment that Google has created for its employees also communicate the organizational culture that the company applies that includes not so formal ways of getting around the institution. Essentially, employees get around the organization from one end to another with ease using Razor scooters and custom bicycles. This makes them tire less and enables them to focus their energy on productive activities rather than on strenuous activities such as walking from place to another within the organization while conducting organizational tasks. Advantages of the structure and culture present at Google As per the systems and structures applied by Google in terms of providing a working environment that it is conducive for employees, the company also seems to be offering immense benefits to those that add value to it. The implication of this is that Google understands the need to create employee and customer value as part of achieving its desired overall goals. Google is not confined on making money and profits, but their main goal is to influence a lifestyle within itself that will foster an environment that will be able to provide these goals. Therefore, one advantage that the structure and culture applied by Google is that it influences teamwork and also influences employees to be more creative for the good of the company. Further, this also instills organizational loyalty among Google team members because of the level of value that the organization carries its employees, which in turns influences productivity levels for the company. In terms of health, Google also helps their employees to worry less about their health by providing full health insurance coverage to all their employees making them to be job secure and also valued because the state of health for employees matters to the company. Additionally, Google also has child care centres in all of its subsidiary companies across regions that allows parents to worry less about their children as they are allowed playtime with their kids in these facilities. The advantage that this brings is that employees are able to work stress free because they do not have to worry about their kids at home or about health insurance. This in turn fosters organizational loyalty and workplace productivity because employees do not have to worry these things because the company that they work for caters for them. Disadvantages of the structure and culture applied by Google Despite the fact that Google has been able to influence organizational loyalty and productivity levels, the organization has not been able to make any new innovations over the past few making this system to be a subject of criticism for analysts. Moreover, Google has invested so much in making employees comfortable at the workplace but does not provide a guarantee about them staying at the company forever as most of them stay for at least five years and leave. According to a significant number of Google ex-employees, employees work long-hours that can exceed to up to sixty hours in a week simply because the company provides benefits making this culture to be justified. To them, Google also pays its employees poorly as these ex-employees intimated that it was way below the average or required industrial wage. As much as Google offers a work environment that is fun, some employees feel that the environment created is also unprofessional making the company not able to achieve the level of results that they require. Task 2: Comparison of chaos management applied at Google and traditional management systems Google applies the concept of chaos management as part of its desire to avoid as much conflict as possible within the their working environment in order for them to maintain order. The company applies the philosophy developed by Mayo that suggested that Happy workers make very good workers, which is a modern concept of management. Essentially, Google has learnt to strike a balance between its needs and those of its employees, which explains the reason as to why the company has enjoyed success over the past few years. According to the company, this management style has proven to be effective because it has influenced company and employee productivity at a somehow cheaper cost as compared to other companies. For Google, chaos management has influenced creativity in terms of setting their organizational goals and also in achieving them, which has been the driving force behind the company being ahead of its rivals in innovativeness. One beauty attached to chaos management that is not present in other management styles is the fact that this style condones failure and also gives room for trials and experiments so as to foster innovative products. As compared to the autocratic style of management in which the management team tends to be in control of managing the affairs of a company, this company sees this as an invalid practice because influences to be rigid and non-productive. In so doing, Google applies chaos management instead of the autocratic management style because it minimizes the chances of the occurrence of conflicts and internal friction among employees because no one feels as though they are the boss over others. However, autocratic management style helps provide some form of order in a company because it influences employees to have discipline because managers are able to steer employees towards the direction that they desire for their organization (Lussier 2012, p. 37). In comparison, chaos management style as applied by Google creates the horizontal leadership in which all team members appear as equals in which there may the lack of the sense of direction. The other traditional management styles that chaos management can be compared to is persuasive management style in which managers have the autonomy to make decisions by including employees in the decision making process. In essence, persuasive management style shares the same qualities as consultative management style as the feedback given by employees during the process of decision making it to be a partnership but the implementation of the ideas provided by employees is not guaranteed. Persuasive management style shares similar traits as chaos management because both of these styles view employees as partners rather than workers because it requires the collaborative efforts of both parties. However, the difference that emerges between the two is that the boss or the one in charge can make the final decision as much as they involved the employees in the decision making process, which does not happen in chaos management. As a result, persuasive management as a form of management style as compared to chaos management tends to hinder creativity because employees do not get to enjoy employee fulfilment. The last management style is the democratic style in which employees exercise the right to vote for ideas that they feel are helpful to an organization in order for it to achieve success. Such freedom is needful as it helps employees feel valued as part of running an organization operations as this gives control as compared to any other management style. This creates room for disagreements and conflicts, which the chaos management style does not support as this may only views conflict as a negative attribute to an organization. What those that negate the practice of this management style do not know is that conflict can also help in influencing creativity in an organization meaning that chaos can be good. As witnessed, the chaos management style applied at Google may be effective to some extent, but the company also needs to include some concepts such as professionalism, allowing conflicts, and having bosses in control among others to foster more growth. Task 3: Motivation theories that can explain how employees of Google can be motivated According to various researches, Google tops the list of the most preferable company to work for in the globe, but this has not been a sure way of ensuring that the company retains its workforce because many employees exit the company annually. For one, Google continues to grow by continuing to do so the company finds itself in the dilemma of offering the same benefit package to its employees meaning that it has to downsize some of them. The result of this is that most of the old employees find themselves loosing the benefits that they once enjoyed as they are being taken away from them, hence leaving them with no option than quitting Google for this reason. Researchers believe that organizational culture is shaped by the behaviour of the employees, meaning that influences a change in behaviour helps in shaping the culture of an organization. Several motivational theories exist that can be applicable in influencing employees to be more productive within an organization. The carrot and stick theory by Jeremy Bentham, the Need Hierarchy theory by Abraham Maslow, Douglas McGregor’s Theory X and Y, and the motivation hygiene by Frederick Herzberg are some of the well known motivational theories. Others include valence vs expectancy theory by Victor Vroom, the model by Porter and Lawler, the theory of needs by McClelland, the ERG theory by Clayton Alderfer, the equity theory, reinforcement theory, cognitive evaluation theory among a list of other theories (Nelson & Quick 2012, p. 78). Most researchers recommend the application of the equity theory and the expectancy theory in motivating employees, which can also be helpful to Google as a way retaining its workforce. i. Expectancy theory Essentially, this theory suggests that people act in a certain manner, drawing from the expectations that they have as their belief is that certain behaviour might influence certain outcomes. Based on how attractive the outcome may be, an employee according this theory can be motivated to increase their level of productivity because this is likely to make them look good in the eyes of the organization or the management team (DuBrin 2009, p. 389). Therefore, employees tend to realize personal goals through the rewards that they are likely to get out of their actions making to rely on four variables, namely; efforts, performance, reward and lastly the achievement personal goals. The implication of this is that satisfaction for employees may draw from the rewards or incentives offered by an organization. For Google, applying this theory is key, but the company should ensure that the employees compensate for all the benefits that they receive in the organization to ensure that both parties benefit from this motivation theory if applied. The implication of this is that all employees should be responsible enough to perform that can in turn attract rewards that can also influence employee satisfaction, which one of the essential components of increasing workplace productivity. The bottom line is that only those that are deserving of the rewards should be rewarded fairly as per the contribution that they give so as to foster a cohesive working environment. Equity theory The equity theory as developed by Stacey J Adams employees tend to be motivated based on the belief that the structure applied in rewarding them is free, fair, and just or vice versa as per the contributions that they give to the company. The meaning of this is that employees may not be productive or creative if they feel that the reward system applied does not reward equally, which may explain why most Google employees leave the organization in search of other companies that can foster these. On the contrary, when the employees feel that the rewarding scheme used by an organization is fair, then they are highly likely to give their best effort as this motivates them to work harder for their good and that of the organization that they work for (Pride, Hughes & Kapoor 2011, p. 287). According to this theory, the offered by an organization and the work conditions provided by an organization do not guarantee the yielding of high results. Surprisingly, when the management chooses to promote one individual among a group of employees then this is highly likely to demotivate the other team members without the management realizing this. Google can apply this approach by making sure that they treat all employees equally and also reward them fairly for their efforts in order for this to work an yield the desired results. Additionally, Google should also praise those that deserve it and pay extra attention to those that seem to struggle with becoming better at their workplace productivity. In so doing, Google will be able to retain a fraction of the employees that they lose to other organizations because of the level of motivation achieved through this motivation theory. Task 4: The importance of the role of teams and team building at Google by using theories about teams in support of the analysis In many organizations, team work plays a vital role as it helps in the successful completion of organizational tasks and also influences the overall success of the same. Team work also helps an organization to have order and influences the peaceful coexistence of members as the common definition of teamwork is a group of individuals brought together with the aim of achieving a common goal. Essentially, teamwork requires that people work in manageable teams with the focus being on the achievement of organizational success as intimated by various group theory researchers. The benefits of having teams and applying teamwork for Google In a business environment such as Google, teams can be essential in fostering creativity among individuals and can also help in building self confidence of individual team members, hence explaining the importance of building and developing teams. For one, applying teamwork can be the gateway to innovation and creativity as individuals are able to generate ideas that have the potential of being the next being thing for organizations such as Google (Mumford 2012, p. 298). Working in teams also helps individual team members to take more risks as a group rather than taking them as individuals as this gives them the confidence to venture in technical ideas that might not attract personal consequences. For Google, allowing team members to work as a team or teams can be essential as this helps to bring out necessary personalities such as leaders, thinkers, and workers within a group, which helps in creating a balance on the skills available in the group. Working as a team can also be helpful for individuals or employees as this allows the team members to view each other as family rather than just being focused on completing tasks meaning that they act as support systems. The STAR and the Team stages theories on teams As much as teamwork is necessary, the process of developing a team is essential as this helps the individuals to understand each other and evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of each other during the same. For Google, allowing employees to form teams is important as this will allow them to share ideas, recognize skills and abilities, which is part of the team development process (Hall 2010, p. 382). On the contrary, the process of team development has four stages, which are forming, norming, storming and performing. In the forming stage, team members in the group come together as the initial stage where they do not develop a set of rules that would act as a guide when working. Secondly, on the storming phase group members become more accustomed to one another and in the process of sharing ideas may not agree on some issues that may lead to internal conflicts. The third stage, which is the norming stage group members develop rules or norms that help in the running of the group an on the performing stage the group becomes fully operational as it works as a cohesive unit by working as a team. Essentially, the above stated framework is a theory developed by Tuckman Bruce in 1965, which became the Team stages model (Johnson 2009, p. 318). Another team theory that can be applied by Google is the STAR Team model, which helps team leaders and teams to determine the aspects in their surroundings that they need to focus on. This requires the development of the strengths of the group members and also the establishment of worthy relationships, which in turn fosters teamwork within a workplace. The STAR model also requires a happy manager who is able to influence the other team members to be happy when pursuing the achievement of goals, which translates to success. Leaders in the teams formed at Google should be keen to align the strengths of team members with team work that is effective while staying focused on the achievement of desirable results as suggested by Apex Leadership (2015). In essence, STAR denotes strengths, alignment, teamwork and results within this model that can help in creating effective teams, conducive and happier work environments for Google employees. Bibliography Top of Form Apex Leadership 2015, “Star Team Performance”. Available from http://www.apex-leadership.co.uk/team-building-in-the-workplace/ [19 January 2015] Dubrin, AJ 2009, Essentials of management, Mason, OH, Thomson Business & Economics. Hamen, SE 2011, Google the company and its founders, Edina, Minn, ABDO Pub. Co. Johnson, JA 2009, Health organizations: theory, behavior, and development, Sudbury, Mass. [u.a.], Jones and Bartlett. Jones, GR 2010, Organizational theory, design, and change, Upper Saddle River, N.J., Prentice Hall. Lussier, RN 2012, Management fundamentals: concepts, applications, skill development, Mason, Ohio, South-Western. Muford, MD 2012, Handbook of organizational creativity. Waltham, MA, Academic Press / Elsevier. Nelson, DL & Quick, JC 2012, Organizational behavior: foundations, realities, and challenges, Mason, Ohio, South-Western. Phillips, J & Gully, SM 2012, Organizational behavior: tools for success, Mason, OH, South-Western Cengage Learning. Pride, WM, Hughes, RJ & Kapoor, JR 2012, Business, Mason, OH, South-Western Cengage Learning. Bottom of Form Read More