Is Google's Way of Working Sustainable - Case Study Example

Googling out of control – Is the Googley way of working sustainable? BY YOU YOUR ACADEMIC ORGANISATION HERE HERE HERE Googlingout of control – Is the Googley way of working sustainable? Introduction Google has an organisational culture which is based on having many liberties and considerable autonomy in job role and function. The company provides free meals for employees, allows pets to be included as part of the organisational culture, and the basic atmosphere is that of free-thinking knowledge experts who are mostly in their 20s or 30s demographically. What is known as the Googley way of working provides this company with considerably high profit and success by giving workers a job environment which provides many different perks. However, Google is a company which works in an industry where change is constant and there is a need for ongoing free-thinking employees in order to stay competitive. In other types of industries, the Googley way of working could potentially spell disaster for sales and overall business success. This paper will show whether the Googley way of working is actually sustainable long-term for the company and will discuss whether or not this way of working could provide higher benefits for different companies in need of change to their organisational structures or systems and processes. Discussion of Google and management theory Historical theorists such as Frederick Taylor believed in a scientific method for business in which people should be observed over a period of time and then determining, through these observational findings, which method of training is best for performing specialised jobs in the organisation (Bloisi, Cook and Hunsaker, 2006). Combined with the scientific approach, Taylor also viewed workers through a mechanistic standpoint, believing that workers were often inherently difficult and uncooperative and often lacked the ability to absorb knowledge and information successfully. This classical view of management is still at work in many different industries today which have strong leadership hierarchies where virtually all decision-making starts at the top and trickles down the organisation. Google has managed to break away from this classical type of management model where workers are heavily controlled and observed and has given their workers considerable autonomy in most of their own decision-making concepts and job roles. It may only be in an environment where change is constant and there is a need for flexible and rapid decision-making where this chaotic type of leadership concept is going to be successful. For example, many of the main global automakers are experiencing sales declines in their auto sales, especially noticeable in the United States. Automakers in this category such as Ford and General Motors (as two examples) have a more rigid type of management hierarchy where decision-making starts with the Board of Directors and the Chief Executive and begins to trickle downward through the organisation. Because these are production companies, the lower level employees are rather mechanistic and perform their job functions based on the current processes demanded or policies regulated. Internally, this does not create the type of motivation required to gain full worker cooperation and support for meeting business goals. Having a de-motivated internal culture can lead to errors, quality problems, or any other number of factors which will ultimately affect customer sales negatively. Some of the automakers are being pressured to consider the Google model, which tends to decentralise management and gives workers more creative thinking in the design of the business model, in order to improve the brand image of the companies (Elkington, 2009). Google’s current policy of allowing for free-thinking and providing considerable perks with virtually zero management presence has given the company proven sales results and this success can be shown most largely with the financial gains made by the company by remaining competitive and offering new ideas in technology. Long-standing companies, such as General Motors, which has been run using traditional management theories, with workers less-involved in decision-making, are finding that these models can no longer support a finished product which is top quality and perceived by customers as being superior. One author even refers to the automakers as being “dinosaur industries” requiring immediate teleportation into modern management style (Elkington, 2009, p.22). When other companies are considering adopting Google’s more autonomous model, it shows that there is a view in multiple industries that this company’s leadership concepts should be benchmarked. Jarvis (2009) reports that many different car manufacturers received billions of dollars from the government in order to avoid bankruptcy, only to discover that they still lacked the means necessary to effectively meet their customers’ needs. Again, this shows that Google’s more liberal model could be used within these industries to provide companies with staff who are more dedicated to providing a better finished product and having meaningful relationships with customers at all levels of the organisation. This shows that other industries, even those with multi-million dollar budgets for advertising and complicated marketing strategies, still lack the basic motivational tools to give these businesses a better image of quality and dedication at the employee level. In many ways, this is because of how these companies are structured and they do not provide much visibility for the low-level worker. Google is able to essentially show off their ability to find sales and business successes by highlighting their innovations in staffing and leadership, which creates the buzz necessary for continued success in the technology marketplaces. This Googley way of working, compared to older, more traditional systems where decision-making is centralised, seems to be sustainable for the future for building a positive company brand and also for having more dedicated workers. Organisational issues Two experts in management offer that “the organisation is treated much like a nirvana, a given, natural, inevitable and unquestionable entity” (Jackson and Carter, 2007, p.6). However, what does this really mean? It seems to offer that managers in some industries take an unrealistic view of the organisation where they are trying to change workers to fit the organisation rather than adjusting the organisation to better fit worker needs. The Commonwealth of Australia (2007) offers several suggestions for implementing organisational change which include preparing and supporting workers and staff and to ensure that workers are constantly engaged with new change developments to keep their support and dedication. These suggestions are part of the Australian Flexible Learning Framework which shows the international viewpoint about the organisation where workers are being moulded to fit the organisation. This framework does not suggest that it would be important to change the organisation to better fit the needs of employees. Using the Australian learning tools as the point of comparison for Google, it again shows that Google has changed their actual organisation in a way that provides more flexibility for workers. Google does not constantly ask workers to change their beliefs or work habits, so long as profit success is measurable and occurring as a result of their job efforts. It seems that there is a rather generic viewpoint, which can be seen in other regions besides the United Kingdom, that it is the people which require change and constant monitoring in order to get their support. This could be another reason why Google’s chaotic management theory is more successful because it does not view the organisation as a rigid nirvana, it tends to view the workers as vital to business success and is willing to make changes in the organisational structure and design rather than making workers endure ongoing training, development, and even scientific observation. When workers feel they are being over-managed, they will likely not respond. From the human resources view, many companies are finding better ways to motivate workers, in order to achieve business successes, by offering specialised job perks to workers. There is a modern concept known as work-life balance which often offers flexible scheduling and different stress-reduction exercises, at the organisation, to make their jobs more holistic and rewarding at the mental level (Westman, Brough and Kalliath, 2009). These are motivational tools which are implemented in order to get workers to contribute to meeting business goals. Google recognises the importance of striking a strong balance between reaching goals and using human resources theory and motivation in order to get workers to respond. At Google, many of the workers are in their 20s and 30s, therefore many of the workers have more modern views of self-management and autonomy. This group is considered the Generation Y group in society who respond much less when directed using centralised authority and are involved in less decision-making. Therefore, Google understands the needs of its workers by conducting psychographic segmentation, or the process of finding connection at the lifestyle level with workers (Rodoplu, 2008). Psychographic segmentation is used in marketing to identify people by their lifestyle activities and what they consider to be most important at the workplace. At Google, as one example, having pets available throughout the workday brings the lifestyle into the organisation and motivates workers to find the right work-life balance to keep toward meeting long-term business goals. Understanding what the needs of worker are and then designing the organisation around these needs seems to be the Googley way of working, which is revolutionising the human resources view of workers. Being able to abandon the desk in favour of using an exercise ball or the stationary bicycle, in order to pull together their moods or thoughts, is something which is quite uncommon in many different industries. This creates an environment where creativity is invited and workers are given the corporate tools necessary to enjoy a comfortable and lifestyle-relevant work space. Since it seems that many other industries are still using research to try to uncover how to change workers instead of the organisation, Google’s proven sales success records and creation of innovation shows that the Googley way of working is more sustainable for younger workers and they have taken the lead in human resources and motivation through these efforts. A recent study of workers at an internet provider firm found that social recognition and feedback incentives boosted performance of workers (Westman, Brough and Kalliath). Google actually promotes ongoing socialisation between workers at different levels to make the work environment more inviting for their personal and professional needs. Workers interacting as their peers pass by on skateboards, though somewhat childish, creates the type of environment where workers can freely enjoy one another’s company and brainstorm ideas informally. Google recognises the importance of social recognition and has, again, built this into their organisational structure so that the business evolves rather than the worker. Conclusion and recommendation Google clearly has taken the lead in creating a better organisational culture and providing workers with the ability to regulate their own job role activities. Industries which do not use these flexible concepts, and are finding themselves growing stagnant in their markets, are turning toward Google to refresh their business and better involve their employees in decision-making. This shows that the Googley way of working is very much sustainable as it is becoming the benchmark for other companies looking to change their internal processes and policies to give workers better motivation for long-term success and contribution. Google shows that even in rapidly-changing environments which require innovation, workers can be motivated properly so long as the company is willing to change rather than making workers endure pressure to change their habits. Google should, as one recommendation, remember that the twenty-something and thirty-something workers are going to age, therefore their lifestyle needs are going to change over time. If the company does not have a high turnover, where workers are quickly promoted or leave for other job opportunities, the business may have to evolve further to have a more mature environment for the aging workers. If the company does not refresh its staff regularly, the Googley way of working may not be sustainable. It is recommended that other industries, not just Google, examine the changing lifestyle needs of workers as they age to that the business can be flexible in offering better motivational tools which actually meet with lifestyle needs. References Bloisi, W., Cook, C. and Hunsaker, P. 2006. Management and Organisational Behaviour, Maidenhead: McGraw Hill Education. Commonwealth of Australia. 2007. Organisational change management tips. Australian Flexible Learning Framework. http://industry.flexiblelearning.net.au/Guide/7-21_Organisational_change_ management_tips.htm. (accessed 1 Jan 2009). Elkington, J. 2009. Googling the Future. Director, London. 62(9), p.22. Jackson, N. and Carter, P. 2007. Rethinking Organisational Behaviour, Prentice Hall. Jarvis, J. 2009. How the Google Model could help. Business Week. Iss. 4118, p.32. Rodoplu, K. 2008. Travel and tourism. Bilkent University, School of Applied Technology and Management. http://www.tourism.bilkent.edu.tr/~benice/restonews/page52.doc. (accessed 2 Jan 2009). Strategic Direction. 2007. Googling out of control – Can Google’s chaos management style ensure continuing success? 23(8), pp.25-27. Westman, M., Brough, P. and Kalliath, T. 2009. Expert commentary on work-life balance and crossover of emotions and experiences: Theoretical and practice advancements. Journal of Organisational Behaviour, Chichester. 30(5), p.587. Read More