Just completed my ITM assignment 1 on the Google case study, submitted 30 minutes before the due date. So without further ado, here it is.
1. Introduction
The technology sector is currently an
inherent component of all corporations globally, and has been largely
incorporated by many organizations seeking to run their businesses more
efficiently and productively. It has also enabled companies to further study
organizational behaviors, as well as to research in depth about team
compositions and what makes one more productive than the others.
It
is significantly tough for managers in organizations to get the right combination
of people to form a team that delivers results, as there is an increasing
demand for teams with a high level of effectiveness. Managers have to be in
constant overview in building the perfect teams for successful productivity, no
matter how an organization develops over time.
Google, is a information technology company, and is
known for its highly competent organizational culture which will be evaluated
in this paper, showing why some teams are able to outperform another and how
does building a perfect team benefits the organization in the future. It's
a common belief that teams that possess appropriate expertise and work more
cohesively together will be more likely to successfully achieve their goals
(Teh, Baniassad, Rooy & Boughton 2012). Despite that, social psychological
research shows that even though you are able to get the right mix of people
that need not necessary guarantee a successful outcome.
2. Background
Google
was founded in 1998 by Larry page and Sergey Brin, the company went public in
2004 and till today it is one of the biggest companies in the technology
industry, its headquarters is located in Mountain View, California. The company
currently has approximately 56300 employees worldwide and just last year there
are around 2.7 millions applicants.
Despite
being a giant tech company, Google has ensured a great workplace environment
for its employees maintaining its number one ranking on the “100 Best Companies
To Work For” for the seventh time this year. When employees are asked to rate
the company, 97% agree with having good communication. This shows that
effective communication and management is essential in contributing to the
success the company has acquired today.
In
order to find the perfect team, Google has started Project Aristole to study hundreds
different of teams in search of identifying the reasons behind their success
and failure. Researchers that are being assigned to this project have
identified various norms and how some of them are hindering the cohesiveness
and preventing the group from reaching its optimum potential (Daft & Marcic
2008).
3. Issues
Team Cohesiveness
Both
Julia’s study group and Matt’s former group encountered a lack of group
cohesiveness causing members to be dissatisfied with one another which will
lead to inefficient and unproductive results (Stoverink, Umphress, Gardner
& Miner 2014). With a less cohesive team, group members will start to lose
sight of their goals and engaged in less meaningful activities such as using of
their personal cells or even be on social media during discussions.
Matt’s
former group were faced with these problems is due to fact that they failed to
communicate and cooperate together. A team can only work if everyone plays a
part in contributing to the project and making sure that you are responsible
for their own role. The best way for a team to be efficient is if they are
willing to solve the problems as a whole.
According
to researchers, highly cohesive teams tend to achieve their goals more easily;
they practice more effective communication, foster better relationships,
improves coordination, which are all the keys to building a more effective and
productive team. The reason why some teams work better than another is because members of productive teams
take the effort to understand each other, find a way to relate to each other,
and then try to make themselves understood.
Group Norms
Another
factor that teams are usually faced with is what we called the group norms. The
definition of group norms is a set of informal rules that govern
individual behaviors in a group, which
are developed by each member of the team. Positive
group norms such as being on time for a meeting, being task oriented can help
build positive relationships in a working environment (Biron & Bamberger
2012).
For
Matt’s team’s case, the rest of the members chose to keep silent because the
person who would not stop talking is a senior engineer and in most cases,
employees will choose to let the person who has seniority carrying on speaking.
Secondly, the members actually like this guy outside the group setting so that
makes it even more difficult for them to break it up to him.
The
difference of seniority has led the group to not being able to speak to each
other as of equals. This causes the group to have a lack in communication,
which will eventually do more harm than good in the long run. According to
researchers (Sassenberg 2011), people are often feared of being ostracized by
the group and the need of wanting to be accepted outweighs the courage of
speaking up to someone to improve on the communication norm set by the group.
This has resulted in developing a negative norm thus affecting the performance
of the entire team.
4. Possible Solutions
Inculcate effective communication
Effective
communication is one of the most essential skills that we use every day in a
working environment (Roberts 2011). Communication is essential in any
organization as it determines the effectiveness and efficiency of a team as
communication goes both ways, to listen and at the same time giving
constructive feedback.
Advantages
Communication
is the key to any successful teams. With effective communication, members will
be able to understand each other better thus breaking down the communication
barrier amongst them. Members will also feel more comfortable speaking about
their point of view without feeling being judged hence being able to handle
more truthful critics (Wolfe & Box 1998).
Disadvantages
With
more communication, conflicts are simply inevitable and members may have
personal opinions which not necessary fit in well with others. Conflicts can be
viewed as a position factor as it causes the members to think more in depth in
terms of coming up with better solutions and ideas. But with that being said,
if the team is not able to look past that and focus on getting the job done, it
can be a problem resulting a lack in efficiency.
Setting positive group norms from the
beginning
By
developing a set of positive norms for the teams, members of the team will have
a better clarity of their responsibilities and how are their roles going to
affect the overall performance of the entire team.
Advantages
Position
norms such as showing up on time for meetings; be open to new ideas, the
willingness to listen to the one that is speaking at that point of time. All of
these can benefit the group in the long run and it helps to strengthen the
bonds between each individual member as well (Guo, Tan, Turner & Xu 2011).
Teams that are able to put this to practice will find themselves much more
effective in solving conflicts and breakdown communication barriers.
Disadvantages
Setting
the right norms in the beginning can be challenging, as everyone is still
unfamiliar with how one another works. It requires the team to figure out how
to go about working with someone new and it may take a certain amount of time
on that. This can result the team to be inefficient at the beginning of the
project until they find a way of cooperating and collaborating with each other.
5. Proposed Solution – Inculcate
effective communication
For
Google to continue being successful as it is now, the organization is constant
need of producing well developed teams in order to sustain its multi billion
corporation. Individuals often feel shy and reserved at the beginning when
joining a new team but they will eventually feel more comfortable after
communicating with the team, identifying the norms and getting familiar among
them (Polito 2013). With an increased communication the team will be able to
work more efficiently and producing remarkable results.
The role of a manager is to ensure that they are the
ones who break the ice among the team at the very beginning. By implementing a
high rate of communicating, the team members will only then start contributing
to the topic during discussion hence being able to work more cohesively as a
group. The team should also come together to set up goals that they would like
to achieve in the process of completing the task given as well.
6.
Recommendations – Improving better team communication
Strategy
1 – Maximizing interaction between members
With maximum interaction between team
members, it gives each and everyone of them the chance to speak and to listen
as well. Managers ought to be there to facilitate the sessions to create a synergetic atmosphere, which will aid in bonding the group closer together (González-Romá
& Hernández 2014). Managers can also introduce the newest members to the
employees that are already working there, encouraging them to get out of their
comfort zone to socialize with the seniors of the corporation.
Strategy 2 – Having performance
feedback
All
employees, including management are to give constructive feedback on how to
improve on the job performance. This will aid in the management because it
helps to identify what is needed on your end and what others think of you as a
team member. This will be more comprehensive rather than measuring
productivity by the workload you have cleared and that the management will have
a better understanding of you as an employee.
Reference
1. Biron, M & Bamberger, P 2012, Aversive workplace conditions and absenteeism: Taking referent group norms and supervisor support into account, journal of applied psychology 97.4, July, pp. 901 - 912
2.
Daft, RL & Marcic, D 2008, Understanding Management, 6th
edition, Cengage Learning, Boston, Massachusetts, United States.
3. González-Romá,
V & Hernández, A 2014, Climate uniformity: Its influence on team
communication quality, task conflict, and team performance, Journal of Applied Psychology 99.6, November,
pp. 1042 – 1058
4. Guo, ZX, Tan, FB,
Turner, T & Xu, HZ 2010, Group
norms, media preferences, and group meeting success: A longitudinal study,
Computer in Human Behaviors, July, vol. 26, issue 4, pp. 645 – 655
5. Polito, JM
2013, Effective communication during difficult conversations, The Neurodiagnostic Journal, June, pp.
142 – 152
6. Roberts, D 2011, Effective Communication, The Candian Veterinary Journal, May, pp. 457 - 460
7. Sassenberg, K 2011, The impact of discrepancies from ingroup norms on group members' well-being and motivation, European Journal of social psychology, December, vol. 41, issue 7, pp. 886 – 897
8.
Stoverink, AC, Umphress, EE, Gardner, RG & Miner, KN 2014, Misery
loves company: Team dissonance and the influence of supervisor-focused
interpersonal justice climate on team cohesiveness, Journal of Applied Psychology 99.6, November,
pp. 1059 – 1073
9. Teh, A, Baniassad, E, Rooy, DV & Boughton, C 2012, Social Psychology and Software Teams: Establishing Task-Effective Group Norms, IEEE Software, July, vol. 29, issue 4, pp. 53 – 58.
10.
Wolfe, J & Box, TM 1988, Team cohesion effect on business game performance,
simulation gaming, pp. 62 – 75
No comments:
Post a Comment