Googles Organizational Structure and Organizational Culture - Case Study Example

Google’s Organizational Structure and Organizational Culture Name: Institution: Date: Google’s Organizational Structure and Organizational Culture Question 01 a. A multiple cause diagram showing the factors/sources which can lead to Google’s innovation The figure shows the innovation ecosystem of Google comprising of the content providers, consumers, advertisers, and innovators. The link between the four forms the major determinants of the innovation process of Google. The content providers constitute individuals and media companies who are involved in information creation, stimulation of consumer interests; fostering community and providing delivery mechanisms for targeted ads. The consumption of the products of the company is significant because they are the main focus of the company. Google receives more than 4.5 billion unique visitors per day. The consumers are important since they search for information and reveal interests; consumer targeted advertising, validating appeals and testing performance and marketing of innovations, contributing ideas for improvements, becoming commercial users of new products. Over 1 million individuals and companies delivering relevant ad content to search identified users, generating a vast revenue stream that supports Google and helping in monetizing innovator’s new offerings. The innovators' components of the ecosystem include open source community, Google engineers, independent software vendors and Mashup creators. The team consists of a diverse product development network; they develop new offerings that assist in keeping Google sticky and engaging consumers. Innovators extend the value of Google’s tools and technology and generate revenues for Google and themselves. b. A closed loop control model to show the inputs’, processes, and control that can lead to Promoting Innovation The feedback loop shown in the control loop diagram above is arguably the most ingenious. The basic constituting elements: the process that is to be controlled that is, the input, the automated information systems or business processes that process the input and provide the output giving feedback option. The control system comprises all the components including the machines that convert the input signals into an executable format and makes the decision on the current situation and acceptability of the process. It also has a feedback mechanism that gets information on the state of the output. This comprises of new ideas, expertise and the feedback from the customers. The information can then be used as input to reproduce the desired information if the customers were not satisfied in the first place or the information may be used to improve the system. The financially closed loop, for instance, is a system of feedback applicable in determining resource requirement given a capacity and control expenditure closely matching it with the requirement. The control systems should have one integrated autonomous system planning for supply pattern then monitor the demand mechanism and feed the error in supply back into the system to accomplish the demand mechanism. The capacity to plan for the expected demand in a business setting and fulfill the need while making profit at the same time is the mark of a successful business. c. The concept of organizational structure Part 1 The structure means the framework around which the whole team of business organizes and underpins to keep the organization functional. The concept of organizational structure is a typical hierarchical arrangement of channels of authority, communication, duties, and rights of an organization. The structure of an organization is the determinant on the manner of assignment, control, and coordination of roles, powers and responsibilities and the way of the flow of information between the various phases of management (Champoux, 2016). The structure is dependent upon the strategies and objectives of the organization. In systems that are centralized, a tight control over the divisions and departments and most of the decision-making powers lie with the top management. However, in decentralized systems, there is an even distribution of power over the divisions and departments which sometimes have some level of independence. The structure of an organization is like the operational manual that gives the personnel information on how the firm operates. Role of organizational structure on effectiveness and performance The performance of the notion of organizational structure comprise departmentalizing, delegating, the scalar principle, centralizing, decentralizing, and the contingent approach. To obtain an efficiency of the work, a grouping of related functions into a departmental sector is conducted is what is known as departmentalization. It includes matrix structure, staff and line structure, and a line structure. The matrix structure is composed of employees working on projects out of their units (Scott & Davis, 2015). Achieving performance that is enhanced in a business call for slotting the people best suited to an operation into an appropriate department capable of harnessing the talents and skills of the employees. It is the mandate of the management of a firm to scrutinize their organizational structure and decide on who fits best in the divisions that are put in place. The resulting productive departments, efficient, properly organized with workers in every unit reach their objectives as well as helping the enterprise achieves its vision (Hogan & Coote, 2014). An effective organizational structure is significant in facilitating the pursuit of organizational goals by getting people to work towards achieving a common goal. This is achievable since it ensures that the employees forgo their interests and work towards achieving the objectives of the firm. Therefore, it is important to establish an environment where the workers are accommodated and the workers perform towards achieving the organization’s goal as though they are theirs. If the culture is made superior, then the cultural value are promoted cultivating coordination and integration as well as seeking to strengthen the associations of tasks and individuals (Harper, 2015). A failure in organizational structure can seriously hurt the capacity of a business to maximize opportunities as well as creating challenges that can lead to serious financial outcomes. The failure of the organizational structure of a company leads to deterioration of communication delaying in ensure of work product and affecting the overall profitability. The task related structure is required to meet Google’s communication needs (Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004). To meet Google’s communication needs, the company requires a non-typical structure that allows change and direct social links within the business. This is a matrix structure which shows some level of flatness and allows for smooth flow of information between the workers and leaders in higher offices without interference even from heads of departments. Grouping the employees on the basis of functions for instances Product Management Team, Engineering & Design Team, and Sales Operations team among others enhances proper channel of communication. The flat structure enables employees to meet and disseminate information and they can also report directly to the CEO bypassing middle management (Harper, 2015). Part 2 Role of organizational culture in shaping organizational performance The horizontal organizational structure also leads to the promotion of unity of command, as a result eliminating the ambiguity of roles, over formalizing of the procedures of work. A strong culture is considerable as a driving force improving the employee performance by enhancing commitment and self-confidence of the workers, improving the ethical behaviors of the employees as well as reducing the work stress experienced. The overall performance of the organization is able to be improved due to the siding of the goals of the employees with those of the organization in a strong culture (Alvesson & Sveningsson, 2015). Companies are supposed to support, help and get involved in the ideas and suggestion of others to increase organizational performance and raise human dignity. The enterprise should provide its members' autonomy, authenticity, supportive monitoring and warmth which enhance organizational learning that is more innovative. The employees are encouraged and to work harder and attain the goals of the organization. The expression of autonomy at all levels of the structure leads to increased nurturing of innovative ideas of the employees. The workers can also examine their current practices at work and determine the best practices that fit the duties given to them (Ellison et al., 2015). The organizational structure has a direct attachment to the performance of the firm in terms of causing a competitive advantage. The level of performance of a business depends to a greater degree on the comprehensive sharing of the values of the culture. There is the extreme fixing of social control with organizational culture capable of determining the behaviors and the decisions made by the employees. An effective organizational structure creates a strong bonding between the workers making them have a feeling of being influential components of the corporate experience, thus the firm can retain the best performers as well as attract new staffs that bring in new talents and ideas. Sense making process gets much assistance from the organizational structure. This creates awareness of the organizational goals and events enhancing the effectiveness and of the efficiency of the workers (Chun et al., 2013). The role of Google’s organizational culture on performance The company has its own brand of management centering on analytics of people which is a quantitative approach to operations and hiring. Google encourages the employees to use a significant amount of their time side projects that are interesting. The employees are encouraged to work hard and some of the projects are integral into new products of Google Inc. the company has drastically altered the means through which the world access since its establishment 14 years ago, even shaping the management practice. The company has a usual corporate structure with the existence of a few unique leadership positions like Chief Internet Evangelist and Chief Culture Officer. The board of directors oversees the workings of the company by providing instructions down via the executive management team. The management team oversees many departments which are further divided into smaller categories. This gives the works the freedom of developing new ideas without being excessively overseen (Wei et al., 2013). The following of the 70/20/10 rule, where the employees use 70% of their daily time to work on the projects given them by the managers, 20% of their daily time on new ideas or projects associated with their primary projects, and 10% to any new projects that interests them not considering what they are. The rule enables Google Inc. to innovate new services and products since it gives the executives, the salespeople, the programmers and other components of the firm ample time and space for creativity. The scheduled meetings between the founders of the organization and the employees also provide new ideas in the complex environment of work with the expansion of the operations of the venture. The employees are able to pitch in new projects and ideas directly to the top leadership at the meetings hence the superb performance of the company. Part 3 The concept of organizational learning Learning is the way of creation of new knowledge and improving self. There are numerous debates on the methods and scopes of learning; however, it is not different for companies in its simplest form. Alegre and Chiva (2013) define the concept of organizational learning as the connection between working and innovation. This bases the organizational learning on the application of knowledge for a purpose and learning from the process and from the results linking the learning to action implying useful improvement at the same time. The organizational learning requires a collective interpretation and a systemic integration of new knowledge leading to a corporate action involving risk taking as experimentation (Hatch & Cunliffe, 2013). The implication to the management of knowledge is three-fold: it is important to comprehend the way of creating the ideal organizational learning ecosystem, awareness of why and how something has been learned and ensuring that the learning is beneficial to the business (Siemens, 2014). In general terms, there are two approaches to organizational learning. Firstly is the view of learning from a cognitive perception through looking at the firm as a whole. Secondly is the creation of networks known as communities of practice by the practitioners of the organization basing on the view of learning as a community? The two concepts not contradictory instead they are complementary. The commercial significance of organizational learning is recognizable by many several consultants and organizations (Hotho et al., 2015). It is featured by recognizing the individual and collective learning and identification of real-life examples of the learning organizations are challenging. The reason is due to the visions are being ideal or because it lacks in relevance to the dynamics and the requirements of an organization (Shafritz et al., 2015). Assessment of whether Google is a learning organization Google is the most “googled” firm in today’s business and many other companies are trying to pattern their operations after Google. The achievement of that level of consistency has been enabled by the unique strategies employed by the company which is dependent to a greater extent on the growth of innovation. A learning culture including a wide range of systems, processes, and programs encouraging the individuals and the organization to learn, make recovery from past mistakes and create innovations is a strong predictor of a lasting business performance. Various learning strategies enable Google Inc. to innovate new services and products since it gives the executives, the salespeople, the programmers and other components of the firm ample time and space for creativity. The scheduled meetings between the founders of the organization and the employees also provide new ideas in the complex environment of work with the expansion of the operations of the venture. The employees are able to pitch in new projects and ideas directly to the top leadership at the meetings hence the superb performance of the company. Google can thus far be classified as a learning organization. Part 4 Definition of system thinking and system System thinking is the science and art of critical thinking through which one can deeply analyze the associations between the parts of a system to create a better understanding of situations to make best decisions. It is the interface for inference on behaviors through the development of increasingly deeper comprehension of the underlying structure. The paper uses the term system to imply the collection of parts interacting and affecting each other leading to the creation of a larger whole of a complex entity. Applying the concept of a system to the organization, it is important to note that an organization consists of many components: products, equipment, capital, management and employees among others. The combination of the firm and its competing entities comprise a system called industry (Romiszowski, 2016; Baskerville & Wood-Harper, 2016). Theory and Model System thinking departs from the traditional way of decision making in which the system was subdivided into categories which are then analyzed in portions. The traditional means of making a decision is insufficient in the current dynamic world of business, with the many interactions between the parts of the system leading to reality creation of situations. Examining the interactions between the components of the systems leads to a more complex system patterns which are examinable to create a comprehension on the working of the system. Decisions that establish the system are possible if the pattern is good for the business whereas decisions that terminate the system are possibly made if the pattern is not profitable for the organization (Giachetti, 2016). Importance of system thinking Today’s business ecosystem is complex and its complexity is increasing daily. There is the need for the managers to compete with the technological innovations together with the constantly growing business economy. System thinking provides a model for decision making in the dynamic and changing environment helping the business to adapt to the changes and be able to compete effectively in the market. System thinking is a component of a learning organization (Holmes & Noel, 2015). References Alegre, J., & Chiva, R. (2013). Linking entrepreneurial orientation and firm performance: the role of organizational learning capability and innovation performance. Journal of Small Business Management, 51(4), 491-507. Alvesson, M., & Sveningsson, S. (2015). Changing organizational culture: Cultural change work in progress. Routledge. Baskerville, R. L., & Wood-Harper, A. T. (2016). A critical perspective on action research as a method for information systems research. In Enacting Research Methods in Information Systems: Volume 2 (pp. 169-190). Springer International Publishing. Champoux, J. E. (2016). Organizational behavior: Integrating individuals, groups, and organizations. Routledge. Chun, J. S., Shin, Y., Choi, J. N., & Kim, M. S. (2013). How does corporate ethics contribute to firm financial performance? The mediating role of collective organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Management, 39(4), 853-877. Ellison, N. B., Gibbs, J. L., & Weber, M. S. (2015). The use of enterprise social network sites for knowledge sharing in distributed organizations: The role of organizational affordances. American Behavioral Scientist, 59(1), 103-123. Giachetti, R. E. (2016). Design of enterprise systems: Theory, architecture, and methods. CRC Press. Gibson, C. B., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of management Journal, 47(2), 209-226. Harper, C. (2015). Organizations: Structures, processes and outcomes. Routledge. Hatch, M. J., & Cunliffe, A. L. (2013). Organization theory: modern, symbolic and postmodern perspectives. Oxford university press. Hogan, S. J., & Coote, L. V. (2014). Organizational culture, innovation, and performance: A test of Schein's model. Journal of Business Research, 67(8), 1609-1621. Holmes, B. J., & Noel, K. (2015). Time to shift from systems thinking-talking to systems thinking-action: Comment on" Constraints to applying systems thinking concepts in health systems: A regional perspective from surveying stakeholders in Eastern Mediterranean countries". International journal of health policy and management, 4(4), 245. Hotho, J. J., Lyles, M. A., & Easterby‐Smith, M. (2015). The mutual impact of global strategy and organizational learning: current themes and future directions. Global Strategy Journal, 5(2), 85-112. Romiszowski, A. J. (2016). Designing instructional systems: Decision making in course planning and curriculum design. Routledge. Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (Vol. 2). John Wiley & Sons. Scott, W. R., & Davis, G. F. (2015). Organizations and organizing: Rational, natural and open systems perspectives. Routledge. Shafritz, J. M., Ott, J. S., & Jang, Y. S. (2015). Classics of organization theory. Cengage Learning. Siemens, G. (2014). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. Wei, Y. S., Samiee, S., & Lee, R. P. (2014). The influence of organic organizational cultures, market responsiveness, and product strategy on firm performance in an emerging market. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 42(1), 49-70. Read More