The Googley Way of Working - Essay Example

The ‘Googley’ Way of Working Introduction In the current age of information and computer technology, the internet has become a major source of information. In the management sector, there are various management techniques which have been practiced and are currently being practiced by different companies and organizations. These management techniques range from the highly organized to the highly chaotic management styles. Regardless of management styles, the trend seems to be set – that there is no one ‘style’ or technique which will work for all or which will fit all organizations or corporations. The chaotic management style seems to fit some organizations more than others. This is the case for the Google Corporation which has thrived in a chaotic work management environment. This paper shall assess this ‘Googley’ way or working, assessing it for its veracity and the appropriateness of its application. There are various theories which explain how this style of management seems to work and how it may not work for other corporations. This paper shall analyse the case study “Googling out of control” by using various theories and perspectives within the Google’s organisation culture. Discussion Based on the case study or the article being assessed for this paper, the ‘Googley’ way of working is a “fluid, risk-taking, casual style of work” (Strategic Direction, 2007, p. 26). This style of working discards the formal, ceremonial, and business-type work environment in favour of the informal, free-flowing, and open work environment. This informal work environment has allowed the corporation to open itself up to massive information influx which often causes chaos and confusion within the corporation. Critics have reviewed this work-style as a disorganized management style which will not hold up in the future. Various critics claim that despite its ‘openness’ to information, Google’s chaotic system may not be sustainable as it may slip into an even greater and more unmanageable chaos in the future. Theories which help to explain, to support, or to even counter the theories within the Google organization culture shall be discussed. Theorist Brown attempted to make sense of the ‘Googley’ way of working by explaining that a company should aim to use less of the style of management it actually needs (as quoted by Lashinsky, 2006). Brown further explains that in order to succeed in ambiguous and urgent situations, less structure should be created. She put it in simple terms by saying that “if I ever come into the office and I feel comfortable, if I don’t feel a little nervous about some crazy stuff going on, then we’ve taken it too far” (Brown, as quoted by Lashinsky, 2006). The informal setting allows the free-flow of ideas, a setting where its members are not afraid to take risks, but are concerned enough to not be mindlessly reckless with them. This unconventional culture within the Google Corporation has allowed it to considerably increase its stocks and to generate about $800 million in cash for each quarter (Lashinsky, 2006). While criticisms of Google’s inability to come up with a ‘second act’ seems to be thrown against the corporation and its ‘chaotic’ organizational culture, undeniably, it is still the corporation which has managed to functionalize systems which now include the photo site Picasa, Google Finance, and Google Blog Search (Lashinsky, 2006). Analysts further emphasize that this chaotic system works very much for the Google Corporation because when order is imposed, the corporation would end up functioning like everybody else. However, through chaos, brilliance can emerge. Technologies like Google Earth were introduced as cable news prop tools, but the site has now become an important tool in predicting and assessing effects of disasters; and it has also become a valuable real estate tool (Lashinsky, 2006). And without the risks that the corporation has taken in introducing these innovative ideas, the internet and IT world would not be where it is today. An important theory set forth by various theorists is that a good work environment is a key to a company’s success (Chaynes, et.al., 2009, p. 2). The fact that employees can go to work in any way they like and the fact that they can arrange their offices and work places in any way they pleased are just some of the ways by which the Google work environment has been relaxed and opened up. In an article by Goleman, he emphasizes that ultimately, it is the organization climate that can drive the organization and the mechanics of competition. Goleman cites six factors which can influence the work environment. These factors include: flexibility, responsibility, standards, rewards, clarity, and commitment (Goleman, as cited by Chaynes, et.al., 2009, p. 2). And these characteristics have been seen in the Google organizational culture. They have remained flexible in their work policies; they have instilled in their employees a sense of personal and professional responsibility; they have managed to establish a system of rewards among their employees. Consequently, the employees’ sense of clarity and commitment to their work has been sustained throughout the years. Moreover, the open lines of communication among the employees and with the management of the Corporation have allowed the company to improve its capabilities. Googlers can easily meet with other Googlers in order to discuss ideas, to develop team spirit, and to improve their networking opportunities (Chaynes, et.al., 2009, p. 3). A less hierarchical management style has also enabled management prerogatives to be rotated and occasionally be handled by other members of the organization (Chaynes, et.al., 2009, p. 3). This culture again allows the members to open up and take management prerogatives when they feel like they need to take such opportunity. In this set-up, no one is managed. Again, this espouses the open and relaxed system in the corporation – a system that strengthens links between the employees and the managers. This applied theory in the Google Corporation can be further assessed using Elton Mayo’s theory on organizational culture and success. Mayo sets forth that the Hawthorne effect is the most effective way to improve productivity. And by applying the principles set out by Hawthorne, Mayo also proved “the productivity of workers when we take care of them” (as quoted by Chaynes, 2009, p. 3). The founders of Google have come to understand these concepts and they have taken them to heart in the running of Google. From these concepts, we can evaluate how the ‘Googley’ way of working is an effective and employee-centred approach in managing corporations. Another theory riding on Google’s management style point out the different values and benefits which lead to creativity and a willingness to perform (Hierling, et.al., 2007, p. 12). Analysts point out that benefits reduce employee stress and increase the job security of employees; it allows employees to also concentrate on their work without having to worry about other factors and elements of their job and work space. This ‘Googley’ way of working has been set as a philosophy in the environment of Google Corporation. It is an emphatic way of pointing out that “generous quirks keep employees happy and thinking in unconventional ways, helping Google innovate as it rapidly expands into new lines of business (Goo, 2006, pp. 1-2). This innovative work environment is crucial to the smooth running of Google Corporation as it has since opened new offices in different parts of the globe including Beijing, Zurich, and Bangalore. Consequently, Google has managed to attract brilliant and innovative minds (Goo, 2006, p. 1). It has tripled its talents to 9,000 employees and has managed to launch new products almost every week in its operation. Some of these products have been considered as flops; however, this has not stopped the corporation from embracing and even and acquiring its competition. We saw this in its billion dollar purchase of YouTube. Google has managed to embrace and to learn from its failures and is still open to committing them in order to eventually get the next ‘big’ idea right (Goo, 2006, pp. 1-2). This is the culture of fearlessness that the corporation has managed to nurture for itself. Its work environment has now become more than a corporation, it has taken on the look of a college campus where wild, ambitious, and even unlikely ideas abound. And although employees at the corporation have ‘job titles’, these are generic titles which do not make a big difference on the way employees are treated as long as each one of them gets to “keep trying” to get the next big thing (Goo, 2006, p. 2). Google applies the democratic style of management, in contrast to the autocratic and the paternalistic styles of management. The democratic style focuses mostly on placing the trust on employees and basically encouraging them to make decisions (Tutor2u, 2010). There is a delegation of authority to the different workers or employees and listening to them and to their suggestions. Openness in communication is also seen in this type of management and democratic discussion groups help formulate ideas and plans in an open and trusting work environment. This democratic style of management links with Herzberg’s motivators and Maslow’s higher order skills along with McGregor’s Theory Y view on workers (Tutor2u, 2010). As can be seen from the discussions above, the Google workplace has an open line of communication with its employees, allowing each of them to blossom, to develop, and discover their potential in the corporate world. With limited restrictions on their work, the Google work environment proves that a more relaxed and more democratic style of management can work well in sustaining a billion dollar industry. The Theory Y by McGregor is yet another theory which can help explain the Googley way of working and its effects on employees and the general work place. Based on Theory Y, the “essential task of management is to arrange organizational conditions so that people can achieve their own goals best by directing their efforts toward organizational rewards” (McGregor, 1960, as quoted by Bolman & Deal, 2003, p. 119). McGregor emphasizes the importance of providing workers with a higher and deeper sense of fulfilment in their work; and that a person who is sick would most likely suffer behavioural consequences in his work (as cited by Bolman & Deal, 2003, p. 119). And in the Google work environment, workers indeed have a higher sense of achievement in their work. They are not overly rebuked for their failures, even if such failures may cost the company billions of dollars in losses. Instead, they are encouraged to express themselves and to share their ideas to the concerned corporate managers. The idea being supported by McGregor ultimately settles on Maslow’s self-actualization goal. By allowing employees to actualize their egoistic needs, they are likely to perform and work even harder to actualize their needs and their goals. Consequently, “when more managers align organizational requirements with employee self-interest, the more they can rely on Theory Y’s principle of self-direction” (Bolman & Deal, 2003, p. 119). Conclusion The paper above explains and evaluates and Googley way of working. It explains how the Googley way of working has worked well for the Google Corporation. The Google Corporation is one among many multinational corporations competing and trying to make their mark in the world of information technology. The corporation has made a huge mark in IT when it was launched as a research company in 1996. Since then, it has managed to maintain its dominance as a primary internet search engine. Amidst the pressure of coming up with another ‘big’ product, instead of opting to whip its workers into shape, the corporation has opted for the so-called soft touch. It has opted to operate under the auspices of a relaxed office and management style; one which incorporates the principles of a democratic work place, where the workers are free to express their ideas – no matter how seemingly outrageous and even if such ideas are ultimately doomed to fail. Consequently, Google has created an environment where its employees are free to explore all possibilities and all avenues in order to get to that next ‘big thing’. Word count: 2000 words Works Cited Bolman, L. & Deal, T., 2003, Reframing organizations: artistry, choice, and leadership, California: John Wiley & Sons Chaynes, L., Tiphaine, L., Alexandra, L., Tim, F., Pierre, J., Daniel, P., & Tristan, S., 27 February 2009, Google, Laetitia Chaynes.com, viewed 15 January 2010 from http://laetitia-chaynes.com/doc/Google%20case%20.pdf Goo, S., 21 October 2006, Building a 'Googley' Workforce: Corporate Culture Breeds Innovation, Washington Post, viewed 15 January 2010 from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/20/AR2006102001461.html Googling out of control: Can Google’s chaos management style ensure continuing success?, Strategic Direction, volume 23, number 8, pp. 25-27 Hierling, M., Yu-Chen Ye, Tai, C., & Yu, J., 2007, Organizational Culture and the Case of Google, Germany: Auflage Publishers Lashinsky, A., 2 October 2006, Chaos by design: The inside story of disorder, disarray, and uncertainty at Google. And why it's all part of the plan. (They hope.), CNN Money Fortune Magazine, viewed 15 January 2010 from http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/10/02/8387489/index.htm Styles of management, 2010, Tutor2u, viewed 15 January 2010 from http://tutor2u.net/business/gcse/people_management_styles.htm Read More