Google's Project Oxygen: do managers matter

Google's Project Oxygen: Do Managers Matter?

Today Google is irrefutably one of the most buoyant, stimulating and hence possibly most sought-after corporations in the world. The organization is rated as one of the best on account of its performance as an enormously coveted employer and all of this emanates from the carefully developed and assiduously followed 'Google culture'. In addition, the corporate culture is linked to elevating and inspiring the thinking as well as the creativity of its employees with the programs set for the avant-gardists in the company. For quite some time since its inception, Google as a company, together with its founders questioned whether managers matter and whether they had any significance on the performance and productivity of the company. The company's organizational culture is a flat organization where it does not focus or concentrate on hierarchy and it encourages a philosophy of cooperation and joint effort. However, the results of the internal program Project Oxygen, to assert the insignificance of managers gave results to contrary to such a notion. This is the fact that Project Oxygen not only offered Googlers the conviction that mangers still mattered but at the same time also acknowledged, defined and entrenched their most important behaviors. Project Oxygen, a project undertaken for quite a number of years came up with findings that provided eight key behaviors for managers that are up until now being nurtured and refined through training and communication.

Introduction

Google is one of the most successful and revered companies in the contemporary times across the globe. This is attributed to the innovative projects undertaken by the company continually towards self-assessment through which it can offer its innovative products. In tune with its thrust on analyzing set norms, Google initiated and engaged in Project Oxygen in the year 2009, which is assessed and discussed expansively in this paper. From the initial days of the company, one aspect that was largely queried was the value of managers and whether they mattered. The company was formed and built by engineers for engineers. Considering this, it is imperative to note that a great deal of engineers devote their time planning and debugging, not interconnecting with managers or overseeing other employees' progress. A number of years after the company's inception, Page and Brin, the founders of the company, questioned whether the company needed managers at all. Consequently, in the year 2002, the leaders of the company experimented by employing a total flat organization and getting rid of managers. However, this particular trial lasted just a few months. With the growth and advancement of the corporation, the founders realized that managers played a great part and provided immense contribution in significant ways and manners (Shanmugam, 2013).

This particular paper will discuss the challenge that Google tackled in this case study and that is whether managers matter. A great aspect to consider is how Google as a company can function and operate effectively if the high skilled personnel employed by it do not value the managers. More so, how does the company convert the doubting individuals and thereafter convince them to spend time supervising and managing others. Google started to examine its conventions regarding management's qualities and then made its case. Project Oxygen, a project undertaken for quite a number of years came up with findings that provided eight key behaviors for managers that are up until now being nurtured and refined through training and communication. As is seen in the case study, by the end of 2012, Google had revealed statistically significant enhancements in numerous areas of managerial efficacy evidently demonstrating that managers matter a lot to the organization.

Google Culture

On its establishment, the founders of Google, Page and Brin, instituted an informal culture. Google is undeniably the most exciting and vibrant corporations in the present world today. The organization is contemporarily ranked as one of the best owing to its performance as an extremely sought-after employer and all of this is concomitant to the Google's corporate culture. In addition, the corporate culture is linked to elevating and inspiring the thinking as well as the creativity of its employees with the programs set for the avant-gardists in the company (Google, 2010).

The workforce structure of Google is deemed effective and efficient. Considering the founders of the company are young and vibrant, they have instituted an employee structure that hardly has any formal chain of command. As opposed to formal establishments, the founders prefer an open door structure whereby each worker is encouraged to talk over about problems and the present set of circumstances of the organization. In addition, the business has inculcated an outstanding feature that fuses with the team structure used by Google is that all the tasks are undertaken in projects. The frontrunner of every project changes periodically and every individual gets to become a leader at some point. In every task undertaken, it is expected that every individual interacts and collaborates with the team members as well as bringing his or her individual strengths (Scott, 2008).

More so, employees in Google enjoy complete freedom of forming the course of work that is undertaken within the tasks. Every team that is formed is responsible for their own task and organization. The sort of slogan that is put in place in Google is 'fix what is wrong'. This gives the whole institution a way of solving a problem as one. The engineers in Google have a system called the 20% program. This means that they get to dedicate 20% of the overall work hours on tasks and projects that they are only interested in. This system has proven effective as it minimizes the level of stress and promotes creative thinking (Hierling, Yeh, Tai & Yu, 2007).

Employees also consider the institution to be splendid because of the laid back attitude and feeling in the working environment the company offers. They get to wear casually when they get to work, and appearance does not matter but hard work and passion does. Moreover, all the employees have the option of owning part of the company. Every employee is given stock options, which in turn, make every individual and their share of work a part of Google (Weber, 2007).

Characters of People who Work at Google

Most of the employees in Google are engineers. As stated by Eric Flatt who is a software engineer at the company, "We are a company built by engineers for engineers" (Garvin et al., 2013: 2). In addition, as a company, Google sets high standards for recruitment to make sure that they employ personnel who have the utmost talent level. The company evaluates and appraises resumes seeking out key aspects that indicate that the employee might do well for the company (integrity) in addition to displaying high intellectual capacity (Garvin et al., 2013: 2). Google specifically seeks personnel who offer great contribution and input to the human capital of the company. In definition, human capital encompasses the experience, talents, abilities, and values of the personnel. What is more, as mentioned in the case study, the company looks for four aspects from individuals during the interviewing period and this includes knowledge and understanding linked to a role, leadership, the manner in which one thinks and importance of being a part of Google. The company has young, hard workers who yearn for autonomy in their work in addition to being diligent, determined and perfectionist individuals (Garvin et al., 2013: 3). Google has created a culture where conceptualization and imaginations are respected and appreciated and in which authority is resultant from peer admiration. According to Zemsky (n.d), this sort of respect is referred to as referent power. The aforementioned influence and authority is centered upon acknowledgement with appeal to, or veneration for the manager or leader. In addition, the company employs individuals who are intelligent and steadfast in their beliefs; they prefer capability to work experience. The established organizational culture at Google inspires a work setting that is not only inventive but also free that permits the workers to share concepts and views without inhibition.

Google operates a flat organizational structure. In definition, this structure does not focus or concentrate on hierarchy and it encourages a philosophy of cooperation and joint effort. Wirthman (2014) opines that flat structures are most effective and function properly when a corporation's key aspect of operation is innovation and novelty. Google fits this definition right from its inception that continues to this day. .Novelty takes into consideration what is preferred by the consumers, what is deemed feasible in the market and what is conceivable with the technology that is available. In order to continue existing and remain relevant in the industry, it is imperative for a company to be innovative that Google has effectively undertaken.

The company is consistently seeking out new ways and means to be inventive, generate new products and services on the internet, and also make it possible for end users or the consumers to experience a faster, smoother search engine. For this reason, Google hires creative personnel because they inspire an innovative and fresh work setting. In addition, the company is keen on carrying out conceptual marketing comprising of complete portrayal of the company, return and consumer satisfaction. Google and its employees take a very serious view of these aspects. As mentioned by Garvin et al. (2013), the company's revenue and income has risen every subsequent year. It is apparent that Google is keen on the wants and needs of the consumers bearing in mind that it has the most prominent search engine in the globe. The over-all corporate differentiation is noticeable through Google's Oxygen 8 attributes (Garvin et al., 2013).

Pi Lab's Implementation of Oxygen 8

The implementation of Project Oxygen encompasses the use of surveys, feedback, training and also nomination of the "Great Manager" award that was initiated by the company in 2009. Setty's team worked in tandem with the human resource department to undertake two different surveys. Tech managers survey was for the engineers while upward feedback survey (UFS) was for the other general employees. The feedback reports shed light on issues present in the working environment and the managers were encouraged to discuss ways to improve in these particular areas. Once this was done, management-training courses centered on these attributes were created. The courses focused on improving the different areas that the managers were lacking. Lastly, the Great Manager Award was an incentive of analyzing how well the managers applied these attributes to make them better performers (Garvin et al., 2013).

Assessment of the Oxygen 8 Attributes

Project Oxygen, initiated by the company, started out with an essential query that was raised at the start of the century with regard to whether managers have any significance. This particular subject matter fashioned a continuing long-term research study that in conclusion gave rise to an inclusive program, which was put together around eight main management individualities, made to assist Google personnel grow into better managers. By the year 2012 when Patty Setty was unveiling it, the aforesaid program had been in existence for quite a number of years, and managers of Google could recognize substantial improvements backed by statistics in the effectiveness level and performance level of their management team (Garvin et al., 2013).

Setty, together with his team, made an examination and analysis of the results from the corporation's annual survey of its personnel (referred within the organization as Googlegeists), and the scores attained from performance management analysis. This also included other pertinent data regarding the managers to be able to distinguish the good and effective performers from the other ones who were poor and ineffective. In particular, Project oxygen set out to examine and evaluate the results obtained from the performance reviews, feedback assessments, submissions for top-manager honors and other obtainable data. Setty and his team also made a correlation of expressions, difference of opinion, acclaim and criticisms. In addition, the results were placed in order of their significance towards further analysis and consolidation (Garvin et al., 2013).

The main point of initiating and developing Project Oxygen for Google was to increase the speed of making decisions and to make management much simpler and more effective. In analyzing this case study, this particular program can prove be a source of competitive advantage for Google in the industry and will result in greater performance. To start with, the eight rules established from the program are quite simple and their application does not necessitate any kind of personality change for a manager (Bryant, 2011). These rules do not require an individual to change the person who he or she is. The inferences of the project are that, if one is a manager, and he or she seeks more effort and performance from his subordinates, there are two things that ought to be undertaken to ensure satisfaction. These two aspects are consistency in decision-making and making time for the subordinates. It is for this reason that the Oxygen 8 attributes might be a foundation of competitive advantage for the company (Bryant, 2011).

It is imperative to point out that Project Oxygen does indeed have its confines and restrictions. A guarantee to managerial excellence and brilliance is an aspect that can be difficult to sustain in the end. For it to continue being sustainable relies on the continued effectiveness of managers who flourish and thrive at the eight behaviors in addition to the applicability and bearing of such behaviors to top executive positions (Garvin, 2013). What is more, whereas survey scores measure the satisfaction of the personnel and the outlooks of the work setting, it is unclear precisely what influence those intangible aspects have on company sales as well as profitability, which are bottom-line measures. However, the program has ultimately achieved what it initially had set out to do (Garvin, 2013). The fact is that Project Oxygen not only offered Googlers the conviction that mangers still mattered but at the same time also acknowledged, defined and entrenched their most important behaviors. In a corporation such as Google, where the personnel is made up of virtually exclusively of top notch players, the managers have to offer consistent and steady feedback to lead individuals to better the extents of accomplishment. However, at the same time, they have to intercede in a fair manner and with a light touch. This indicates that when the project functions in a proper manner, it can generate amazing results and outcomes (Garvin, 2013).

Setty's Priorities Moving Forward

Moving forward, Setty plans to take a number of aspects into consideration for further advancement. One of these aspects is the expansion of Project Oxygen to come up with a better and more refined understanding of the expert qualities and characteristics of the top most managers of the organization such as vice presidents and the directors. In particular, Setty seeks to understand whether inspiration can be taught from the senior executives down to the subordinates in the lower positions (Garvin et al., 2013). However, it is quite questionable whether leadership and innovation can be taught or achieved. This is because inspiration is more of a sense or a feeling and is not really an aspect that can be taught. It is imperative to note that leadership can be imbibed but the same may not hold true for inspiration. According to Parks (2005), the enthusiasm of inspiration endures the practice of adaptive leadership. Mere desire, anxiety, or worry can in a short span pass for inspiration. However, authentic inspiration arises from a profundity of well-intentioned purpose and is the invigorating force that induces prospect and fuels the capability to stay the course (Parks, 2005).