Chat with AIExam 4: Asection 2: Global Forces: How Is Canada Faring in the Global Village
Google started out as a very modest business launched by two Stanford University graduates, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, who had the simple idea of the Google search engine. Google's success was built entirely on innovation. Brand new products, new services, and news ways of conducting business were the means through which Google rose to fame. All this required a strong company culture of innovation. Its most fundamental challenge has always been to generate an environment where new ideas can flourish. Therefore a critical requirement for its organizational structure is to ensure that the network of relationships, the rules governing work, and the administrative framework all support and encourage innovation. Undoubtedly, Google's organizational design has played a central role in the company's culture of innovation.
Brin and Page implemented a very flat level of hierarchy whereby top level management
was only one level up from lower level employees. Why? Because in traditional, hierarchical structures, authority systems and reporting levels would slow down the decision-making process and any unnecessary delays in bringing new ideas to the market could mean losing out to competitors. So, instead of hierarchal levels, Google was divided up into small teams that worked on individual projects. Team members rotate to take on the role of team leaders with every new project. This is in contrast to other organizations that often establish one team leader who is always in that role.
The fact is, the fewer the levels of hierarchy, the greater becomes the opportunity for employees to interact freely, collaborate, and make their own decisions. This also has the effect of encouraging leaders or experts to arise naturally rather than being held to a specific job title. The other benefit of creating this relatively flat structure is the ability of employees to readily communicate with the operational leadership, which affords the company a tremendous amount of flexibility.
At Google, the role of the manager or team is to help build consensus among team members rather than to "control" or "manage" them in the traditional sense. In this kind of structure, the role of a manager or leader is analogous to that of an editor who relies on a team of journalists to generate decisions based on the team's input. These teams range from five to ten people depending on the project. The relative small team size also gives the teams more flexibility and speed for decision making. In addition to dividing into these small teams, every six months, a mutual peer evaluation questionnaire is completed by all team members and this leads to a public ranking where natural leaders are identified.
Of course, while teams are central to Google's successful innovation, all this is not to
say that there are no other elements of structure or departments at Google. Given the fact
that this company has grown so large, it needs a certain degree of departmentation. Google is overseen by a board of directors that directs the company via an executive management group. This group oversees the Engineering, Products, Legal, Finance, and Sales departments. In turn, these departments are each divided into smaller units. For example, the Sales department has branches focused on the Americas, Asia Pacific, Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. However, beyond this traditional-looking structure, Google's organization minimizes power differences and formal authority.
The organizational structure is designed to offer employees extensive freedom in making
decisions and trying new ideas. This requires a structure that is not managed by "command and control." The aim is to de-emphasize job titles and power and instead focus on teamwork. Employees need to know that they can take on much decision authority and power over their work. This, too, means that job standardization is a foreign notion to this company. After all, you can't standardize the process of innovation. The decentralized manner of decision making is also reflected across the organization in such functions as hiring decisions, where at least four Google collaborators co-decide on a new hire. In addition to reinforcing the empowered culture, such participative decision- making helps to ensure that new recruits will "fit" within the organizational culture.
Employees are given the autonomy to make changes to a current project or to start their
own. Google employees follow something called the 70/20/10 rule. This requires that each employee devotes 70% of every work day to whatever projects are assigned by management, 20% to new projects or ideas related to their core projects, and 10% to any new ideas they want to pursue. Many believe that this rule has driven the development of Google's innovative products and services. This rule is not restricted to one set of employees. A broad range of programmers, salespeople, and even executives are provided with enough "down time" to be creative. While critics might argue that allowing employees the opportunity to work on whatever they want is a waste of time, that is precisely one of the reasons for Google's success. It encourages employees to create innovative products by surrounding them with an open environment. Given the fast-paced environment that Google must compete in, its organizational structure is designed to meet market demands efficiently.
How did the contingency of strategy influence how Google designed its organizational structure as organic?
(29) 
VerifiedSTRATEGY - IE The main strategy for Google involves pursuing innovation. Google set out to create different kinds of innovative products and services. From the case: "Google's success was built entirely on innovation. Brand new products, new services, and news ways of conducting business were the means through which Google rose to fame. All this required a strong company culture of innovation."
An organic structure would help them achieve that by the four elements of structure as follows :
1) Wide Division of labour/ low functional work specialization - ie social specialization encourages workers to be responsible for many areas and not restrict their thinking to a small area of work - this encourages innovation. From case: "The organizational structure is designed to offer employees extensive freedom in making decisions and trying new ideas. This requires a structure that is not managed by "command and control."
2) Decentralization - ie workers are developed as leaders - decision makers - this allows them to flex their creativity and generate decisions - not having to rely on upper management to decide on the projects. From case: "The decentralized manner of decision making is also reflected across the organization in such functions as hiring decisions, where at least four Google collaborators co-decide on a new hire."
3) Wide Span of control - consistent with innovation is freeing workers up to manage themselves without administrative control above them. From case: "Brin and Page implemented a very flat level of hierarchy whereby top level management was only one level up from lower level employees…So, instead of hierarchal levels, Google was divided up into small teams that worked on individual projects…The fact is, the fewer the levels of hierarchy, the greater becomes the opportunity for employees to interact freely, collaborate, and make their own decisions".
4) Low levels of formalization: mean that workers learn to conduct their job in a creative, free way, unhindered by lots of rules and restrictions. From case: "Employees are given the autonomy to make changes to a current project or to start their own. Google employees follow something called the 70/20/10 rule. This requires that each employee devotes 70% of every work day to whatever projects are assigned by management, 20% to new projects or ideas related to their core projects, and 10% to any new ideas they want to pursue. While critics might argue that allowing employees the opportunity to work on whatever they want is a waste of time, that is precisely one of the reasons for Google's success. It encourages employees to create innovative products by surrounding them with an open environment".
Google started out as a very modest business launched by two Stanford University graduates, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, who had the simple idea of the Google search engine. Google's success was built entirely on innovation. Brand new products, new services, and news ways of conducting business were the means through which Google rose to fame. All this required a strong company culture of innovation. Its most fundamental challenge has always been to generate an environment where new ideas can flourish. Therefore a critical requirement for its organizational structure is to ensure that the network of relationships, the rules governing work, and the administrative framework all support and encourage innovation. Undoubtedly, Google's organizational design has played a central role in the company's culture of innovation.
Brin and Page implemented a very flat level of hierarchy whereby top level management
was only one level up from lower level employees. Why? Because in traditional, hierarchical structures, authority systems and reporting levels would slow down the decision-making process and any unnecessary delays in bringing new ideas to the market could mean losing out to competitors. So, instead of hierarchal levels, Google was divided up into small teams that worked on individual projects. Team members rotate to take on the role of team leaders with every new project. This is in contrast to other organizations that often establish one team leader who is always in that role.
The fact is, the fewer the levels of hierarchy, the greater becomes the opportunity for employees to interact freely, collaborate, and make their own decisions. This also has the effect of encouraging leaders or experts to arise naturally rather than being held to a specific job title. The other benefit of creating this relatively flat structure is the ability of employees to readily communicate with the operational leadership, which affords the company a tremendous amount of flexibility.
At Google, the role of the manager or team is to help build consensus among team members rather than to "control" or "manage" them in the traditional sense. In this kind of structure, the role of a manager or leader is analogous to that of an editor who relies on a team of journalists to generate decisions based on the team's input. These teams range from five to ten people depending on the project. The relative small team size also gives the teams more flexibility and speed for decision making. In addition to dividing into these small teams, every six months, a mutual peer evaluation questionnaire is completed by all team members and this leads to a public ranking where natural leaders are identified.
Of course, while teams are central to Google's successful innovation, all this is not to
say that there are no other elements of structure or departments at Google. Given the fact
that this company has grown so large, it needs a certain degree of departmentation. Google is overseen by a board of directors that directs the company via an executive management group. This group oversees the Engineering, Products, Legal, Finance, and Sales departments. In turn, these departments are each divided into smaller units. For example, the Sales department has branches focused on the Americas, Asia Pacific, Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. However, beyond this traditional-looking structure, Google's organization minimizes power differences and formal authority.
The organizational structure is designed to offer employees extensive freedom in making
decisions and trying new ideas. This requires a structure that is not managed by "command and control." The aim is to de-emphasize job titles and power and instead focus on teamwork. Employees need to know that they can take on much decision authority and power over their work. This, too, means that job standardization is a foreign notion to this company. After all, you can't standardize the process of innovation. The decentralized manner of decision making is also reflected across the organization in such functions as hiring decisions, where at least four Google collaborators co-decide on a new hire. In addition to reinforcing the empowered culture, such participative decision- making helps to ensure that new recruits will "fit" within the organizational culture.
Employees are given the autonomy to make changes to a current project or to start their
own. Google employees follow something called the 70/20/10 rule. This requires that each employee devotes 70% of every work day to whatever projects are assigned by management, 20% to new projects or ideas related to their core projects, and 10% to any new ideas they want to pursue. Many believe that this rule has driven the development of Google's innovative products and services. This rule is not restricted to one set of employees. A broad range of programmers, salespeople, and even executives are provided with enough "down time" to be creative. While critics might argue that allowing employees the opportunity to work on whatever they want is a waste of time, that is precisely one of the reasons for Google's success. It encourages employees to create innovative products by surrounding them with an open environment. Given the fast-paced environment that Google must compete in, its organizational structure is designed to meet market demands efficiently.
How might the contingency of strategy influence management philosophy within Google's organization? Explain.
(35) Verified1. Organizational size: Large organizations with hundreds of employees cannot be managed in the same manner as small organizations with few employees. The need for control and the challenge to achieve it in massive organizations may tend to encourage an approach that relies on elements of the classical school, such as the need for rules and regulations and the importance of an administrative hierarchy to ensure control. On the other hand, small, entrepreneurial organizations might function more effectively with a minimal number of rules and regulations. Google intentionally breaks up the organization into small teams and therefore can be managed like a smaller organization, using the behavioral as opposed to the more rigid classical approach.
2. Routineness of task technology: Google deals with non-routine technology. It is the antithesis of the "assembly-line" organization. Jobs cannot be easily routinized and the technology changes rapidly. Jobs that must continually adapt to changing technology require employees who are equally adaptive. High-tech organizations like Google that employ "knowledge workers" are keenly aware that it is difficult to standardize the jobs of these workers, given the high rate of change within the present technology environment.
3. Environmental uncertainty: An organization like Google that exists within a volatile environment must be prepared for continuous change. Change is the antithesis of the classical approaches, which emphasize stability and order. Consequently, since Google functions in a rapidly changing environment it is less likely to find extensive application of the classical school useful in managing their workforce.
4. Individual differences: Google's operating core is composed of knowledge workers - highly educated employees with a desire for stimulating and challenging work. This too must be considered and it would advocate the use of the behavioral approach which considers issues of motivation and job enrichment as opposed to the classical approaches. The employees are given the autonomy to make changes to a current project or to start their own. The 70/20/10 rule simply asks employees to devote 70% of every work day to whatever projects are assigned by management, 20% to new projects or ideas related to their core projects, and 10% to any new ideas they want to pursue. This behavioral approach, encourages employees to create innovative products by surrounding them with an open environment.
Filters
- Essay(0)
- Multiple Choice(0)
- Short Answer(0)
- True False(0)
- Matching(0)