Our firm did our very first high profile consultancy project for Google (Melbourne, Australia). Google is an American multinational company specializing in internet-related services and products. These include online advertising technologies, search, cloud computing and software.
We analysed that there were three major problems with their work culture that led to unsatisfied employees in the Melbourne campus. These issues were first Google+ initiative: in this the employees were expected to use Google+ outside working hours, second-analytical activities: in this Google hired behavioural scientists to analyse and determine the optimal lunch line waiting time in the staff cafeteria, it created the feeling of discontent and dissatisfaction among employees; third and the last issue was standard greeting script: Google has a standard greeting script and a lot of employees in the Melbourne campus were not comfortable with it, they thought it was depersonalizing and dissembling.
It was very clear that culture control was displayed in the problems. Google tried to diminish boundaries between “work” and “life” balance, thus creating a dehumanising perspective in their culture.
To overcome these problems we recommended some solutions: - more effective communication: Google should encourage open communication between employees and the managers. They can do this by forming smaller connect groups, so that its easier for both the parties to understand what they want and what all can be done to achieve that. Second method was giving importance to employees: Google should ask for employee’s suggestions on achieving various goals and how it can be done, like this they would feel valued and important. Google should arrange social activities to break down professional and social boundaries (Fleming & Spicer, 2004). There should be open forums to express concerns and HR department should monitor it for stats and data. They can also try different leaderships styles such as transformational leadership style which is Inspirational and motivational
. Bass and Avolio (1993) claim that transformational leaders build ‘highly innovative and satisfying organisational cultures’.
Why your group worked well?
The next step was to divide the responsibilities, as a group we figured out there where three major problems given in the case study of Google. As we were six in the group we thought we would work in pairs for each of the problem.
I think the group worked well as everyone was happy with the tasks given to them, the workload was equally divided among the group members. One of the most important factor which resulted in our group working well was that we worked as a group rather than simply working in a group. And yes they are both different. Working as a group is characterised by common effort, utilization of group’s competence, and includes problem solving and reflection. All group members are involved in and working on a common task to produce a joint outcome (Fleming and Spicer, 2004).
One characteristic of groups that are not working well is that contribution varies among the members. In-group work, students with different levels of ambition are assembled, which may result in different levels of interest and commitment, as well as differences in the willingness to take on responsibilities or part of the workload of the group’s work. “Everybody does not contribute just as much.” Or “There is always someone who just glides along and doesn’t take part.” (Hammar and Williams and Senior, 2014). Fortunately for that was not the case with our group, whatever we did was voluntarily taken by us and if anyone faced any problem, we helped each other.
Challenges faced while working together
I think the only challenge that we faced was lack of group meetings. We only met during class hours and communicated through Facebook, the only time we met outside of class was on the day of our presentation where we practiced once…