Management
Institution affiliation
Student’s name
Date
Introduction
Management is a characteristic of a business that doesn’t obligate the same particular duties some of the other parts of the company have. Planning, organizing, leading, and controlling are the four essential functions of management. The functions work together differently in the creation, execution, and realization of organizational goals. The four management functions can be considered a process where each part builds on the previous position (Thomas, L., $ Middleton, J., 2003). For management to be successful, it needs to follow the four functions of management in proper order.
Managers launch organization objectives and make a sequence of accomplishment to achieve them in the planning stage. The organization makes strategic decisions to set the organization’s direction during the planning phase (Ballou, R. H., 2007). The managers can brainstorm different alternatives to achieve the objective before choosing the best course of action. An in-depth analysis of the organization’s current state is typically conducted by managers while planning. It will help consider the organization’s vision and mission and evaluate resources available to meet the organization’s objectives. An internal and external factor that may affect the plan’s execution, like economic growth, customer, and competition, is evaluated during the planning phase. A realistic timeline for achieving the organization’s objectives is established during planning.
Google’s organizational structure and cultural structure
Google is well known for its team-based organizational structure. The traditional corporate network is to have employees at the bottom and the top management on top. Hence, this management approach is vertical. Orders of the decision made at the top are sent to the employees at the bottom. Google’s cross-functional organization structure is more of a team approach to management. Google allows all the employees to be part of the decision-making this maintaining a small-company feel. Also, it indicates that all employees play an essential role in the success of Google. More importance on intelligence and ideas than titles is placed more by this structure.
Google’s success is connected to the efficiency of its managerial structure and organizational culture. Its organizational structure is not conventional. Change and direct social links within the firm are emphasized by Google’s organization structure, making it not typical. Google’s higher chances of success can be led by the alignment between its organization structure and its organizational culture. The benefit is manifested in the case of Google’s business that continues to expand and prosper. Therefore, the organizational structure of Google has been attributed to its current dominance.
Google LLC’s success is linked to its organizational structure and culture’s effectiveness in supporting excellence in innovation. Google has a cross-functional organizational structure, strictly a medium business structure with a significant degree of flatness. The company’s growth and competitiveness are defined by this flatness (Becerir, M. C., 2020). Google’s corporate structure’s main characteristics include; function-based definition, product-based definition, and flatness. Google’s corporate network uses the function as a basis for grouping employees. The company also uses products as a basis for grouping employees. Moreover, the company’s corporate structure has considerable flatness. A flat organization structure means that Google’s employees, team, or groups can bypass middle management and communicate directly with a higher power.
Google’s organizational culture is not typical, partly because of the effects of the company’s organizational structure. Primary characteristics of Google’s culture include; open, innovative, smart with emphasis on excellence, hands-on, and supports small company family rapport. Openness involves the sharing of information to improve Google’s business processes. Moreover, the company supports employee involvement in projects and experiments (Lobato, R., 2016). Google’s organizational culture creates a social ambiance that is warm. Information sharing and employee satisfaction if facilitated by warmth. Therefore, excellence in innovation is supported by Google’s corporate culture by rapidly sharing ideas and responding to the global market. In essence, the structure and culture interact to influence the organization’s capabilities and cultural characteristics.
A company’s organizational structure is an arrangement of components and resources based on its overall design. In contrast, a company’s corporate culture is beliefs, values, behaviors, tendencies, and expectations. Google’s organizational structure is not conventional because of its emphasis on flatness (Simthson, N., 2019). The company’s corporate culture is also not typical because it emphasizes change and direct social links with the firm.
Google’s project oxygen and Aristotle
Project oxygen, multiyear research, was launched by Google to find the answer. It has grown into a comprehensive program that measures vital management behaviors (Labrado, N., 2020). Project oxygen cultivates management behaviors through communication and training. Google embarked on an initiative known as Project Aristotle in 2012 to study hundreds of Google’s team and figure out why some stumbled while others soared. Team members of Google’s current structure and work environment will thrive when they have clear, specific, and transparency goals. Google objective and key results are a management tool used to establish and communicate both long- and short-term.
Reference
Thomas, L., & Middleton, J. (2003). Guidelines for management planning of protected areas (Vol. 10). GlandCambridge: In.
Ballou, R. H. (2007). Business logistics/supply chain management: planning, organizing, and controlling the supply chain. Pearson Education, India.
Raduški, D. (2017). Essential management functions in culture and arts organizations. Management: Journal of Sustainable Business and Management Solutions in Emerging Economies, 21(81), 59-66.
Chan, T., Wang, I. M., & Ybarra, O. (2018). Leading and managing the workplace: The role of executive functions. Academy of Management Perspectives (JA).
Mišún, J., & Hudáková, I. M. (2020). The convergence of two controlling terms. Do we face a shared future between controlling and management accounting?. In SHS Web of Conferences (Vol. 83, p. 01048). EDP Sciences.
Qamsane, Y., Tajer, A., & Philippot, A. (2017). A synthesis approach to distributed supervisory control design for manufacturing systems with Grafcet implementation. International Journal of Production Research, 55(15), 4283-4303.
Marchington, M., Wilkinson, A., Donnelly, R., & Kynighou, A. (2016). Human resource management at work. Kogan Page Publishers.
Becerir, M. C. (2020). Setting the record straight: a comparative analysis of Google’s organizational identity communication versus the media’s portrayal (Doctoral dissertation, Bilkent University).
Lobato, R. (2016). The cultural logic of digital intermediaries: YouTube multichannel networks. Convergence, 22(4), 348-360.
Smithson, N. (2019). Google’s Organizational Structure & Organizational Culture (An Analysis).
Labrado Badía, G. (2020). Contracting in teams with network technologies.