Organizational Behavior Consultancy for Google Case Study

Introduction

Google is one of the most progressive and well-known companies in the modern digital world. The company develops products that have greatly simplified and diversified the daily activities of the society. It is constantly expanding and improving in various fields, such as education, business, industrial activity, technological innovation, and social responsibility. Moreover, inventiveness in how it works, creating a unique organization to support its goals, plays an extraordinary value. However, on the way of its development, Google has some issues, the most critical of which are problems related to the decision-making process and the work of personnel. During the Google case study, challenges such as maintaining the ‘googley’ culture when opening offices abroad and the complexity of getting employees involved between cross-functions as Google gets bigger was highlighted.

For a more in-depth study of the identified problems in the international company Google, theoretical approaches were identified within the framework of organizational behavior. Thus, the cultural perspective and the theory of organizational culture were taken as a basis. The choice was made in favor of these approaches as they consider the value of a human resource within the company’s activities and the importance of establishing and encouraging its work. It is worth noting that “Google has a number of core elements that keep the company in balance. Each of these elements supports the others, creating a system that reinforces itself” (p. 13). Nevertheless, the challenges that have arisen for the organization require special attention. In this regard, in the second part of the work, recommendations will be provided that will help optimize and improve the efficiency of Google, limiting the issues that have arisen.

Before proceeding to the consideration of the highlighted organizational problems, it is necessary to gain an understanding of what Google is. Research stated that “Google is committed to developing “the perfect search engine that would understand exactly what the user means and give back exactly what the user wants” in the form of a fast, accurate, easy-to-use service that could be accessed from anywhere” (p. 4). Among the services offered by the organization are Google Chrome, Google Docs, Google Drive, Google Play, Google Maps, Gmail, and YouTube, and its revenue for 2021 is 256.7 billion dollars (“Google LLC: Overview,” n.d., para. 1). In addition, it is in cooperation with organizations such as AOL and Yahoo! and keyword-targeted advertising program AdWords ((“Google LLC: Overview,” n.d.). The company successfully operates on the global market and occupies a leading position among its competitors.

Organizational Issues

Thus, the first organizational problem that was highlighted during the Google case study is the maintenance of the ‘googley’ culture when opening offices abroad. This problem is especially relevant for companies that decide to expand their activities. The importance of solving this issue is that the external divisions of the organization have a significant impact on its effectiveness. A research case study underlined that “Google revenues in 2007 were $16.6 billion, with $4.2 billion of net income, and approximately half of the company’s revenue was generated outside the United States” (Groysberg et al., 2009, p. 2). Thus, the success of the company depends on the productivity and performance of employees not only within the country but also abroad.

Google has a unique culture, which is called “googley.” It was developed because one of Google’s goals is to respect “employees’ time, and company’s perks often help people optimize their time while also encouraging them to meet new people across the company.” (Groysberg et al., 2009, p. 8). This characteristic implies particular behavior and features that the company’s personnel must have the ability to achieve the tasks assigned to them and maintain a friendly and productive environment in the workplace. Moreover, being “googley” implies the necessary degree of initiative, collaborative spirit, evidence of being well-rounded, and the ability and desire to learn constantly. All these criteria are taken into account in the process of hiring individuals to work in the company and are included in interviews conducted by managers.

Despite the sufficient effectiveness in building the “googley” concept, the problem lies in its extension to departments abroad. This is due to the complexity of compliance control within the recruitment process. Despite the fact that the company has developed a specialized system for hiring individuals, some managers may bypass this structure. The occurrence of such a deviation may occur due to the urgent need to find a specialist for a vacant position or a violation of the company’s rules due to unwillingness to waste time and resources.

Further, the problem of preserving the “googley” features of the workplace in all divisions of the company. As mentioned in a case study by Groysberg et al. “Google is a large organization, yet it continues to be very nimble without letting hierarchy, organizational structure, titles, and levels get in the way of creativity and execution” (2009, p. 12). At the same time, excessive flexibility of the organization contributes to problems with maintaining the necessary environment in the workplace. Thus, it is critically important to find ways in which the company can limit this problem.

The second organizational issue that needs attention to improve the efficiency of the company is the complexity of getting everyone involved between cross-functions as Google gets bigger. This is due to the fact that employees with more severe and significant functions in the company play the most critical role in the decision-making process. In other words, the opinion of many employees rarely has a significant value or is taken into account when developing a strategy or innovation.

It is worth noting that the involvement of diverse opinions is one of the characteristics of the company, and it is impossible to say with certainty that decisions are made only taking into account the opinions of high-ranking employees. The case study indicates that “Google’s decision-making style was often described as “consensus oriented,” and decisions were typically discussed in meetings and via long e-mail strings that outlined the pros and cons of various options” (Groysberg et al., 2009, p. 12). However, despite the emphasis on collaborative thinking, this aspect is still one of the most critical and immediate issues.

Hence, more often than not, important decisions are made by a small number of employees and then briefed to others at meetings. Moreover, not in all cases is it possible to refute the choice or make edits in accordance with the opinion of the staff and get everyone involved between cross-functions. Within the company, the importance of the employee function depends on the position held, where engineering, product management, product marketing, sales, operations, legal, and finance are the most significant. Company representatives are of the opinion that “the functional organization prevented business unit fiefdoms from developing around the company” (Groysberg et al., 2009, p. 11). At the same time, one of the consequences was the emergence of the problem of spreading the involvement of other employees in the decision-making process.

The issue of expanding a company and determining the importance of staff functions is quite difficult to control. Moreover, Google is of the opinion that “keeping the team small would force it to innovate in how it manages the business” (Groysberg et al., 2009, p. 10). Thus, it was proposed to delegate some functions to automated technology and executives who were responsible for managing the current business and developing growth areas (Groysberg et al., 2009). This introduction is aimed at the deployment of resources in more valuable ways. Despite this, there is a need to find ways to manage and facilitate the process of staff involvement within the cross-functional nature of Google.

Theories of Organizational Behavior

For the analysis of identified issues within the framework of this case study, “theories” of organizational behavior were identified. They represent a cultural perspective and an approach to the formation of organizational design. The necessity and value of this stage are that it can give significant insights into the selected problems. It is worth emphasizing that organizational behavior is a critically important aspect that predominantly affects how effectively a company functions and achieves its goals and objectives. Moreover, it essentially concerns human resources and focuses on the causes and motivations of human behavior within different types of professional groups. The study of this aspect helps to increase productivity and strengthen and improve relationships and interactions in the workplace.

The study of theoretical approaches is an important aspect of the activities of organizations. Without a solid knowledge base and constant study of various information sources, a company can significantly negatively affect its productivity and competitiveness. Despite the outdated nature of some scientific papers, especially valuable aspects can be extracted from them for practical application and providing an understanding of the origins of problems. Henceforth, within the framework of this case study and the problems highlighted in it, Google is experiencing significant issues in such areas as the culture and structure of the company. This is due to the international nature of the organization’s activities and the involvement of diverse employees. These aspects directly relate not only to the company’s activities and its results but also to the process of hiring employees, the distribution of functions between personnel, and their role in decision-making.

Further, the first approach that can be useful in researching problems and finding ways to solve them is the cultural perspective and the general meaning of the cultural component. Thus, this aspect implies “learned patterns of beliefs, values, assumptions, and behavioral norms that manifest themselves at different levels of observability” (Schein & Schein, 2016, p. 18). Moreover, research stated that “It is a complex perspective that emphasizes the inherent limitations of managerial authority and influence and rejects claims that strictly structural, rational, or interest factors best describe or explain human behavior” (Ancona et al., 2004, p. 57). The limitation of this approach in solving the problem under study becomes a significant time cost for studying and acquiring the necessary information and data. Thus, this theory can be applied to the case of Google since when expanding, the company also hires representatives of different cultures, nationalities, and worldviews.

The following theoretical approach is the theory of organizational design, which can have a positive dynamic in the distribution of functions and increase staff involvement as part of the expansion of Google. It is noted that “the elements of structure should be selected to achieve an internal consistency or harmony, as well as a basic consistency with the organization’s situation” (Mintzberg, 1992, p. 3). Thus, this theory focuses on the correct structuring and construction of a cohesive hierarchy within the company. The organizational design provides an opportunity to establish a decision-making process that will be carried out taking into account the abilities of decision-making agents and the opinions of other employees of organizations.

It is essential to pay attention to the fact that any changes in the work of the organization can have both positive and negative consequences. However, with a detailed study and application of the concepts of organizational design theory, this process can occur most safely for the company. Mintzberg (1980) identified five main components of this approach: the operating core, strategic apex, middle line, technostructure, and support staff. At the same time, such vital aspects as mutual adjustment, direct supervision, job specialization, behavior formalization, training, and continuity factors were identified (Mintzberg, 1980). These components can become a guide for developing a plan to improve the organizational structure of the company.

Recommendations

Based on the analysis of the organization and the study of theoretical approaches and perspectives that contribute to gaining a deeper understanding of their essence, this work has come to several recommendations. Therefore, one of them is paying attention to such an aspect as organizational culture. In particular, this aspect is closely related to such an issue as the preservation of the “Googley” environment in the workplace. The need is to spread specific rules and requirements that will strengthen the relationship and increase the efficiency of employees, especially in offices abroad.

Despite the fact that Google already invests a relatively large amount of time and resources in creating and improving organizational culture, this part requires attention from managers. This is because with the constant development of the company, there is a further expansion of the staff, which has specific differences and unique characteristics. Thus, the organization faces the task of creating conditions in which every individual will feel comfortable. Moreover, it will contribute to an increase in the number of innovations, the formation of new solutions to problems, and attract more talent. Therefore, one of the recommendations may be to attract more attention to the company to the processes of collecting and analyzing information about employees. This will provide an understanding of how organizational behavior will be formed and which aspects affect the greater motivation of employees.

In addition, adhering to the “googley” culture implies continuous improvement of the abilities and skills of employees. The establishment and formation of a substantial organizational culture will motivate staff to improve in order to achieve the most outstanding efficiency of the company. To achieve this aspect, it is also necessary to conduct appropriate training for leaders who will be engaged in employee management. The productivity and efficiency of organizations and their divisions largely depend on these agents of activity. In addition, a positive contribution can be made by the introduction of knowledge management, which implies “explicit strategies, tools and practices applied by management that seek to make knowledge a resource for the organization” (Newell et al., 2009, p. 6). This process contributes to strengthening the company’s position and productive use of knowledge (Hansen et al. al., 1999). Thus, these approaches contribute to solving the problem of adhering to the “googley” nature of organizations.

The second recommendation is necessary to solve the problem of the complexity of getting employees involved between cross-functions as Google gets bigger. The effectiveness of this measure consists of human-centered nature and focus on work and staff satisfaction. Thus, Google needs to revise some aspects that are responsible for the structural component of the company’s work. This is especially true of the decision-making process, in which a more significant number of participants should be involved. Therefore, a possible decision that managers want to make should be presented to the entire staff, whose functions are directly related to the initiative being implemented.

The use of algorithms can be helpful in building an updated organizational culture. The research emphasized that “algorithms enable new ways to organize work” (Schildt, 2017, p. 22). Thus, they are necessary for analyzing a large amount of data and collecting personnel characteristics. Moreover, it can contribute to the study of management operations and finding ways to improve the efficiency of the organization. Based on the fact that Google has a large number of innovative technologies, this recommendation will not require unnecessary costs. Thus, these measures can be useful in solving the problem of the complexity of getting employees involved between cross-functions as Google gets bigger.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this case study was devoted to the study of organizational issues that arose during the work of the international company Google. To gain the best understanding, a small overview of the organization was provided. Further, the problems that were analyzed in this paper were culture when opening offices abroad and the complexity of getting employees involved between cross-functions as Google gets bigger. The importance of limiting them is that they can have an impact on the efficiency and productivity of the staff and the entire organization as a whole.

Moreover, two theoretical approaches were identified, which focused on culture and organizational design, which provide a better understanding of problems and ways to solve them. Focusing on these aspects of the company’s activities does not mean that it completely conducts its activities incorrectly. It is important to note that Google is good at managing personnel and creating a work environment in accordance with the concept “googley.’ Nevertheless” developed by them, this approach needs to be extended and strengthened in all departments and offices of organizations and limited the possibility of undesirable consequences due to non-compliance with it.

In the end, the scientific paper provides recommendations for improving the functioning of Google. They drew attention to possible alterations within the framework of improving organizational culture and organizational design. These components focus on improving the working conditions of staff, expanding the participants in the decision-making process in the company, and reviewing the structural aspect of the distribution of employee functions. Moreover, a special role may be played by the involvement of technological advancements of the company, which can assist in the collection and analysis of a large amount of data on the work of the organization and its employees, their level of satisfaction and motivation.

References

Ancona, D.G., Kochan, T.A., Scully, M., Van Maanen, J., & Westney, D.E. (2004). Managing for the future: Organizational behavior and processes. Cengage Learning.

Auernhammer, J. M. K., & Leifer, L. (2019). Is organizational design a human-centered design practice?. In Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design. Cambridge University Press.

Google LLC: Overview. (n.d.). Global Data.

Groysberg, B., Thomas, D. A., & Wagonfeld, A. B. (2009). Keeping Google ‘Googley.’ Harvard Business School.

Hansen, M.T., Nohria, N., & Tierney, T.J. (1999). What’s your strategy for managing knowledge?. Harvard Business Review.

Mintzberg, H. (1980). Structure in 5’s: A Synthesis of the research on organization design. Management Science, 26(3), 322-341.

Mintzberg, H. (1992). Structure in fives: Designing effective organizations. Pearson.

Newell, S., Robertson, M., Scarbrough, H., & Swan, J. (2009). Managing knowledge, work, and innovation. Palgrave MacMillan.

Schein, E.H. & Schein, P. (2016). Organizational culture and leadership. Wiley.

Schildt, H. (2017). Big data and organizational design–the brave new world of algorithmic management and computer augmented transparency.Innovation, 19(1), 23-30.