Google Inc. is an American multinational corporation that invests in Internet search, cloud computing, and advertising technologies. Its success is connected to the efficiency of organizational culture (OC) and organizational structure (OS), maintaining a high level of innovation and development. The corporate culture comprises a set of views and values shared by employees within the company. Its institutional structure consists of elements and resources, operating according to Google’s management style and design. The arrangement and environment practiced in the corporation are unconventional and encourage communication and openness between executives and their subordinates. Thus, the company practices unusual OS based on established and effective OC, ensuring its prosperity in the market.
Google’s OS is not constrained by one type or model of the arrangement of control and power in the organization. It is rather a mix of different OSs where the company tries to adapt and respond to issues with regard to management. The chart demonstrates elements of the functional structure as people perform their jobs according to an area of specialization. On the other hand, Google employs the flat organizational style since the middle management is eliminated and workers are able to directly communicate with top directors. Thus, the chain of command is short and effective in reacting to urgent problems and deficiencies. The workflow is decentralized relying on teams of employees who make joint decisions and make suggestions on business operations. What is more, tasks are executed by small groups without control and guidelines by people of higher positions. Thereupon, Google practices a non-traditional OS where employees are not supervised or regulated by heads or managers.
An analysis of the OC and OS can be implemented by imagining the company as a specific object with particular properties and characteristics. According to Tohidian and Ramihian (2019, p. 3), an organization is a machine when “efficiency, precision, predictability, and reliability” are the most marked features or highly prioritized in an enterprise. In contrast, it can be an organism where a firm’s structure contains “interrelated subsystems that are in alignment with each other” (Tohidian & Ramihian, 2019, p. 3). Therefore, Google is more identifiable with the latter since the company focuses on the functions its employees perform. Teams and groups are formed according to the skills and abilities required in a department. For example, the operational level includes only workers whose job is associated with the development and advancement of new technological products. At the same time, the executive stage is responsible for implementing corporate strategies by leading a business unit. Hence, Google is more of an organic than mechanic enterprise considering its OS and its certain aspects.
OC is a system of perceptions and approaches to business, relationships, and performance that differentiates an organization from all others. OC can reflect Google employees’ actual experience in the workplace. Flamholdz and Randle (2012, p. 7) emphasize the significance of a cultural element in business, stating that “the ability to attract, motivate and retain people” is the valuable “human capital” of a company. In the corporation, workers feel free to express their opinion, be it a negative one, or ideas relating to product development. Hence, they are open to sharing knowledge or information on the company’s improvement of performance and innovations. Each of them is fostered to contribute a portion of creative notions. Furthermore, the company aims to involve employees in various projects and activities to assess and evaluate new ideas. Management attempts to set a warm atmosphere of trust and respect with their subordinates, facilitating growth and progress. Thereby, Google’ environment supports innovative initiatives even from front line workers by participating in corporate modernization.
There are several factors, which affect the ways a business forms and develops. Organizations can split into multiple departments, each pursuing their own goals and objectives. Companies are differentiated when branches practice a private set of OS and OC. Conversely, others exercise a strong connection between divisions, working to accomplish the same aims and ambitions, called integration. Google’s workflow is performed with components of both models. There are different departments, working independently from each other. In case one fails to audit financial statements or reach an agreement with a board of directors, the other branch will be limited to reserves to innovate and design. Consequently, Google tries to determine a prioritized area and focus on its efficiency. Meanwhile, integration may cause lags in decision-making as management needs to confirm proposals’ feasibility and practicability. According to Janicijevic (2013, p. 39), “the organization management’s considerations and reasoning circulate in the process of decision-making” in the context of an organization’s OC. However, the company bypasses particular levels so that projects are approved and implemented promptly. Therefore, Google takes active measures in order to respond to issues in connection with its OS.
There are a number of strengths and weaknesses of Google’s OS. The company’s specialization allows people to work based on their interests and preferences. Hence, they are highly productive in job performance and take the initiatives to invent and devise new products. Next, the endorsement of clear and unrestricted socialization enables better policy-making. Additionally, the corporation hires only professionals and experts in various fields. Nevertheless, the diversity of OSs caused fewer opportunities for promotions and career growth possibilities. Workers become unmotivated to function in the company’s best interests as they are unlikely to be rewarded. Moreover, Google’s managerial roles create confusion and favoritism among directors. There is a lack of coordination as to whom employees should report their results. Lastly, workers can be in a stressful environment as they can work on several tasks simultaneously. Thereby, the OS employed by the corporation possesses substantial advantages as well as disadvantages.
Over the course of its operations, Google’ OS has been providing benefits to the company. It was famous for creative approaches in management and the uniqueness of employees’ opportunities to develop as specialists. Now, the organization needs to reconsider its system of the short chain of command. In the long-run, workers’ frustration and indifference can lead to high costs in terms of products’ innovations and modernization. There must a branch uniting all of the departments so that a better level of cooperation can be achieved. The chain needs to be stretched to an extent that employees realize potential career growth. Therefore, it is recommended for Google to re-examine the current OS and allow changes regarding administrative roles in the company.
Google Inc. applies an effective OS standing on the ground of well-established OC. Organic features prevail in the company’s structure, considering its objectives and values. OC acts as a basis for corporate beliefs and preferences. Hence, Google enhances openness in communication and expression of ideas on business performance. Furthermore, the enterprise has been successfully dealing with issues in the matter of differentiation and integration. OS provides fruitful benefits of high efficiency, notable specialization, and carefulness in the hiring process. It also a source of problems of incoordination, management responsibilities, and a tense environment. Thus, Google needs to review the existing structure and make necessary alterations.
References
Flamholtz, E. & Randle, Y. (2012). Corporate culture, business models, competitive advantage, strategic assets and the bottom line: theoretical and measurement. Journal of Human Resource Costing & Accounting, 16(2), 1-20.
Janicijevic, N. (2013). The mutual impact of organizational culture and structure. Economic Annals 58(198), 35-60. Web.
Tohidian, I., & Rahimian, H. (2019). Bringing Morgan’s metaphors in organization contexts: An essay review. Cogent Business & Management, 6(1), 1-8.