Positive Deviance Analysis Outline: Google

Hypothesis: Google is positively deviant because of their great work environment and treatment of their employees. This, in turn, allows for the innovation that makes Google so successful.

I. Description of the Google environment itself

a. Artifacts and Enacted Values

Artifacts

· Offices are geographically named and decorated

· Laid, back open work environment- few solo offices

· Multiple cafes that serve breakfast lunch and dinner to employees

· Gyms, volleyball courts, and pools for employees to work off stress

Enacted Values

· Google’s 10 Things

· Entrepreneurial environment promotes innovation

b. Video

· Video depicts Google’s emphasis on fostering a creative and innovative working environment that caters to their employees needs

II. Choosing the best people for their culture: From the Top-Down

a. A look at Google management

Managers need to be leaders of innovation

· Leader bios; what they did before coming to Google

· Recently new CEO, Larry Page, has taken over and shaken up management, emphasizing product lines besides search. Will this affect Google’s strategy in the long term?

b. Employee selection process; who makes up the “average” Google employee

Google has the ability to select the brightest employees in the world

· Recently received over 75,000 applications in a week

Emphasis on engineering, innovation, and creativity

· They want “smart, amazing people who foster an environment of collaboration and fun”

III. Strive for continuous personal improvement

a. Personal projects

· Each employee expected to spend 20% of their time working on a personal project

· Has resulted in creations such as Gmail, Google Talk, Google News

b. Employee and manager feedback

· Feedback received on a quarterly basis

· Use both traditional and upward feedback

· Use feedback to improve organizational behavior as a whole

IV. How this makes Google so successful

a. Their ability to change

· Many different facets for employees to post ideas

· Open door policy for managers

b. Innovation as their sustainable competitive advantage

· “Great isn’t good enough”

· Google ideas are head of the competition; ahead of their own customers’ needs

· How innovation makes this a circular process (Innovation leads to Environment/Employees which leads back to Innovation)

Semester Summary

In sum, this blog demonstrates Team Tophat’s ability to recognize and use OB topics outside of the classroom; each blog post utilizes a different K&K lesson. “Google’s Organizational Culture” discusses the observable artifacts, espoused values, and enacted values exhibited by all levels of Google’s organization. “Culture Clash: Sprint-Nextel” illustrates the importance of strong organizational culture and provides an example of the difficulties companies face when they go through mergers because of organizational cultural differences. “Adaptations to Culture by International Businesses” relates to the article we read about Disney’s move to Japan and the overall sensitivity businesses must have when dealing with diverse cultures. “Employee Motivation Enabled by the Google Work Environment” shows that certain work environments will improve employee retention and motivation, another lesson taught in K&K. “Google’s Use of Feedback to Determine Good Behaviors of Managers” exhibits the positivity that can come out of properly utilizing employee feedback. “Google’s Model for Change” describes how a successful organization embraces change even though it can be difficult to implement, and how Google uses a process similar to the System Model of Change that is written in our textbook. Finally, “Meaningful Work and Income: What Truly Motivates Wake Forest Students” explores the motivating forces that drive WFU students’ process of job selection; focusing particularly on intrinsic and extrinsic forces of motivation.

Although our blog posts explore many of the topics addressed this semester in Organizational Behavior, each member of Team Tophat gained something from the class on an individual level as well:

“OB has taught me the importance of seeking continuous improvement throughout the organization one belongs to. It is essential in order to empower employees, provide better service to customers, and an excellent opportunity to develop leadership skills.” –Kevin Fennell

“I have learned that there are a lot of different theories regarding why people in organizations behave the way they do and that there are sometimes contradictory ideas about how to motivate employees to work in the most effective manner. However, many of the theories have commonalities and it is pretty well understood that the most effective managers are those that are good role models, effective coaches, and that design a strong organizational environment where employees are intrinsically motivated to strive for success.” –Kelly Ferrell

“I think the most interesting topic we covered this semester was networking. It is single-handedly one of the most important concepts to master because like my dad always says, ‘sometimes it’s more about who you know, not what you know.’ Since almost everyone at Wake Forest is extremely intelligent, I feel like the only way to differentiate myself from other Wake students is to work on increasing the size of my network” –VJ Cerniglia

“The most valuable lesson I have learned since being in OB has been the importance of learning what motivates your employees and further cultivating that motivation. It’s interesting to me to see how different people will respond to different motivating forces. Knowing what motivates your employees will ultimately help your company succeed.” –Ashley Suchoski

In the end, each of us learned something personally valuable from Organizational Behavior this semester. Hopefully we'll remember these lessons and use them to make a change in our own organizations in the future!

Meaningful Work and Income: What Truly Motivates Wake Forest Students

In class we looked at the results of a survey that aimed to uncover which job qualities are the most motivating to employees. The qualities that were ranked in the survey were promotion, income, meaningful work, hours, and job security. Interestingly, in both years the survey was taken (1973 and 2000), the results were the same: meaningful work, promotions, income, job security, and hours were the rankings from most important to least important. The survey results proved that intrinsic motivation (meaningful work) is much more motivating than extrinsic motivation (everything else).

Before the results of the survey were revealed to us, our class believed that meaningful work would be at the top of the list in 1973, but income would top the list in the more recent survey. When Professor Caza asked us why we though income would be more motivating to our generation than meaningful work, the students couldn’t give a solid answer. Some suggested that we are attracted to a higher standard of life, while others said we are more driven by financial success.

The class’s confusion made me curious to see if all Wake Forest students would be motivated by income, like the students in our class seemed to be. To test the hypothesis, I conducted a survey similar to the one we viewed in class, and sent it to approximately fifty students.

The results were surprising:

https://spreadsheets.google.com/a/wfu.edu/ccc?key=0AiMqS3_H8ATUdGNpN3pxQkFESXAxUmdTNUtnZGVKYkE&hl=en#gid=0

While there was a lot of variation in the ranking of the list in its entirety, the top-ranked quality was overwhelmingly common. Of the forty one total votes, meaningful work was ranked first twenty nine times. Income was the second-ranked choice with eight votes (about twenty percent) and job security came third with four votes (ten percent). Of the twenty nine votes for meaningful work, income was chosen as second most important thirteen times (a little less than half). It was followed by hours, job security, and promotions with seven, four, and one vote, respectively.

When asked to explain their choices, the most common response among students who ranked meaningful work first said they could not imagine doing something they did not enjoy. Many said that enjoying their work vastly outweighed making a high salary (intrinsic motivation). Even those who ranked income first were not motivated by money itself (with the exception of one extrinsically motivated individual who ranked his qualities in the order of what would make him the most money overall). They explained that they are used to a certain standard of living, and they want to earn a high salary in order to maintain that lifestyle. Others explained that they want to be able to provide for their families, which is still a form of intrinsic motivation because they are working for a cause and a purpose. The desire to provide for their families was also the most given reason for students who listed income as their second choice after meaningful work.

Analysis:

I find the results of the survey very interesting for two main reasons. First, due to the competitive nature of Wake Forest students, I expected students to be as motivated by salary as they are with obtaining good grades and a high GPA. Most people do not pull all-nighters when studying for exams because they love the subject so much that they can’t put their books down. They pull all-nighters to get a good grade. I assumed that a student body that is so motivated by positive feedback in the classroom would be equally motivated by a high salary at work.

Second, many Wake Forest students were raised in a relatively high standard of living (this is a generalization, of course), that can only be maintained by a high salary. I was surprised to find that more students did not choose salary as their first option for this reason. It is interesting to see that meaningful work still outweighs salary despite these motives.

Given the aforementioned reasons, I was not surprised to find that, among those who ranked meaningful work first, high income was the second most important work quality. It was interesting, however, to see that promotion was nowhere near the second place quality (considering it was ranked second in the surveys taken in 1973 and 2000). Rather, promotions only received one vote. The student who placed promotions second explained that “Coming out of college, I'm prepared to have job transitions and work long hours, so I am prepared for those, and ranked them as less important. For me, I now have the opportunity to really delve into what I want to do, and hopefully do well at it - which is why meaningful work and promotions were ranked higher.” For some reason, this student is the only person who responded with a sincere desire in moving up the corporate ladder. Others were relatively uninterested in promotions, ranking it between third and last place in their list of qualities. Not only does the ranking of promotion contradict with the surveys taken in the past; it also contradicts with my belief that students are motivated by salaries, since promotion typically comes with an increase in salary.

The results of my survey reveal that I was wrong about Wake Forest students because they are more motivated by meaningful work than I would have guessed. Perhaps the discrepancy between the surveys of 1973 and 2000 and the survey results I just provided can be explained by our lack of work experience. Because we have not yet entered the workforce, promotions are not in the forefront of our minds. We expect to be happy with our work and make a lot of money right off the bat. Maybe if I ask the same Wake Forest students to take this survey again in ten years, the qualities that motivate them at work will more exactly align with those of the generations before us.

Google's Model for Change

     As stated in K&K, “change” can sometimes be very difficult for organizations to implement because of the different internal and external forces present within a certain company. With that said, Google’s organizational culture embraces change at every level within the company. Over the years Google has made it extremely easy for employees to embrace change. First, Google gives every engineer one day a week to work on their own project, no matter how far off that project is from Google’s strategic plan. Some of Google’s most innovative products such as Gmail, Google Maps and Google Voice all came from giving employees free time to work on products they felt personally indebted too. Second, Google provides an idea board that anyone in the company can read and write to. This allows employees to receive feedback about which ideas they think will be most profitable for the company. Also, this allows for the whole company to give feedback about a product before change is implemented throughout the whole company. Third, managers hold open office hours three days a week so that employees can receive input on the direction of their personal projects or help on implementing a new project. Once again, this allows for multiple sources to help in the changing process and will be more effective in the long run since more people will have input and not just one person will be making the decision. 

     K&K’s System Model of Change can be applied in any of these situations. First, the inputs are gathered when the customers think up an idea that they think will be profitable for Google. Once that idea is generated, they can get feedback from other employees or managers which will ultimately shape the strategic plan of the idea. After they define their project, they go ahead and code the project by targeting either an existing part of the organization or by creating something completely new and revolutionary. Finally, once the program is created it is revealed to the public as an output. In all, Google is a constant reminder that change can be good for organizations and that by following some of the standards they have, it might make it easier for other companies to implement change.

Google’s Use of Feedback to Determine Good Behaviors of Managers

Feedback is defined by K & K as “objective information about performance” (201). Feedback can both instruct and motivate and it is used in organizations across the world to improve employee performance. At Google, performance reviews are performed on a quarterly basis and employees are both reviewed and review their own bosses, using what the book defines as both traditional and upward feedback (205). An interesting article about how Google has used this feedback to improve management was published in the New York Times in March called "Google's Quest to Build a Better Boss." Since 2009, Google has compiled these performance reviews along with feedback surveys in a plan called Project Oxygen, which attempts to figure out the habits of the most effective managers (Byrant). They gathered more than 10,000 comments from over 100 variables, and looked for patterns within the comments (Byrant).

In the end they came up with” Eight Good Behaviors of Managers”. These behaviors were numbered by importance, listing the most important aspect to being a good manager to “Be a good coach. Provide specific, constructive feedback balancing the negative and the positive. Have regular one-on-ones, presenting solutions to problems tailored to your employees’ specific strengths” (Byrant). This goes in hand with K & K’s suggestion that to properly respond to a common employee complaint that feedback is too complex managers should “Help employees understand the feedback by being specific and identifying observable behaviors or measurable results” (203).

While advice such as this is by no means innovative, Google believes that this project was worth it because they want to know “what works at Google, rather than what worked at any other organization” (Byrant) This project has also allowed Google to coach individual managers and allowed them to make improvement to 75% of the worst performing managers (Byrant). However, Google also considers the biases that go into performance reviews and has a list of “cognitive biases” to employees to consider when participating in performance reviews (Byrant).

This project is especially interesting because Google has determined that managers themselves receive better feedback when they in turn provide constructive feedback to their employees. This really seems to show just how essential feedback really is for employees. Employees feel that feedback and coaching is essential to their growth and they reward managers who provide specific and balanced feedback. Satisfaction with management also results in better work performance.

In my own experience, I have also found that receiving good feedback is really important to my performance and development. Whether it is at school or during an internship, I have found that I work the hardest when I am aware of where I am meeting my goals and where I am falling short. My strongest mentors have been those who have shown a genuine interest in my development and have given me constructive feedback to help me improve.

It seems clear that effective feedback is really essential in organizations both for employees and management. Employees need feedback in order to become more of aware of their strengths and weaknesses so that they can improve and become the most productive. Managers need feedback so that they can see their own strengths and weaknesses, learn how to be more effective leaders and coaches and in turn provide effective feedback to their employees. Google's use of performance reviews to not only determine promotions, but also improve the organizational culture as a whole, is an effective strategy that other organizations would do well to consider.

Employee Motivation Enabled by the Google Work Environment

Google has one of the most famous work environments in the world. The sprawling main campus, Googleplex, with a complete list of amenities, including gourmet chefs, leisure activities, and quirky designs, attracts the brightest employees from around the globe. This unique work environment enables Google to not only hire top talent but facilitate a work environment that caters to innovation. This innovation is what allows Google to enjoy so much success with their constantly improving applications and programs. Google’s work environment maintains a skilled, hard-working organization made up of highly-motivated employees satisfied with their jobs, allowing them to achieve such success.

With the rapid rise of any new and rapidly developing company many might assume that skilled employees are difficult to find, assimilate into the organizational culture, and retain, however, Google has accomplished this. This can be attributed to a number of advantages that derive from Google’s reputation. First, they are one of the most visible companies in the world. The number of applicants for positions at Google is astonishing. After news broke that the company planned to hire more employees in 2011 than ever before, they received over 75,000 applications within a week (Young). What is clear from this statistic is the fact that people want to work for Google. They have created an organizational culture with a work environment that people desire. What is clear is the incredible talent pool Google is able to draw from this massive influx of applications. A second advantage directly deriving from the work environment is the company’s ability to retain its workforce. Many employees have been with the company from the start and are now rising to take roles in upper management. The company had an employee attrition rate of only 4% in 2005, which, relative to the national average of 29.3%, is very low (Kopytoff). Google’s human resources director, Stacey Sullivan attributes this to the work environment her company provides. It is not the fortunes that could be made by employees, or that have already been made by the earliest of employees who exercised low priced stock options, but the opportunities Google enables its employees to seize. The work is meaningful as employees can work closely together in order to implement innovative ideas and benefits that few other company’s can offer (Kopytoff). Employees enjoy their work and feel motivated to work diligently.

Google’s ability to locate, hire, and retain top-talent from around the world is closely related to their skill in creating a unique work environment. They create a meaningful and motivating work environment for these employees so they can work to their full potential. Motivation is kept high by the well-planned and unique work environment Google has designed. Although it may be considered unorthodox by many it works in a practical manner to enable Google to work to its full potential. This work environment at Google results is a great advantage that enables the success and innovation the company has enjoyed thus far.

Works Cited

Kopytoff, Verne. "Instant Wealth Makes Employee Retention Google's Big Challenge." SFGate. Web. 25 Apr. 2011. .

Young, Rob. "Google Gets Swarmed with Job Applications | Search Engine Journal." SEO & Search Engine News : SEJ. Web. 25 Apr. 2011. .

Adaptations to Culture by International Businesses

Our recent discussion of Disney’s actions to open parks in France and Japan details the difficulties and adjustments that must be undertook in order to successfully adapt an already popular amusement park to a new culture. As we learned, Disney had much more success in reaching the Japanese market than in France where attendance numbers were low. In order to enjoy this success in a new market, such as Japan, Disney needed to adjust its park and the way it worked to appeal to, and satisfy, what Japanese consumers wanted. First, the orderly nature of the park was increased beyond that of the American Disneyland which is in fact very orderly to begin with. Everything is clean with all operations running at an even more efficient level than in America. Second, small adjustments such as in the number of restaurants needed to be perfected. The Japanese look down upon walking while eating so the number of sit-down restaurants was doubled in comparison to the original Disneyland. Third, attractions are tweaked slightly to appeal to the principles of Japanese culture. These adjustments to an already successful theme park in the United States have allowed Disneyland Tokyo to be an enormous success. Disney successfully created an “exotic” park that at the same time contains many familiarities that comfort the Japanese (Maanen).

Disney’s Mickey Mouse is one of the most recognizable fictional characters in the world. With international Disneyland locations, movies, television shows, and books people all over the world can recognize the character. As we have previously discussed, the global nature of Disney has necessitated adjustments to the cultures around the world it targets. In order to build on globalization’s effects on culture, another highly visible worldwide company will be examined. McDonalds, with its trademark Golden Arches can be found in 119 countries, serving over 47 million customers daily (Veseth). With such obvious global success it becomes evident that McDonalds has been extremely successful in adapting their brand and products to many different cultures throughout the world.

McDonalds regardless of their locations outside of the United States must compete with the local restaurants in the area. In order achieve success they must adapt their menu while keeping the characteristic efficiency you will see at any McDonalds worldwide. In most areas of India, menus are 100% vegetarian featuring items anyone who is familiar with McDonald’s traditional menu would be amazed at. While this menu would certainly fail in most places outside of India it is essential for success in that area. McDonalds did try and sell their trademark beef burgers in India and failed quickly due to the sacred nature of cows in this region. Adaptation to the local culture in which franchises are opened is an absolute must for success. In the mid-2000s McDonalds began introducing a new concept, the drive-thru, in some of their Chinese locations. This was done in response to China’s increasing suburbanization which has increased the prevalence of cars within the general population of China. While this seems like an easy adaptation to their restaurants, the Chinese culture is very unfamiliar with this concept. Employees had to direct cars through the proper entrances and instead of the use of a speaker to take orders, this task would be done by an actual employee face-to-face. McDonalds had to adapt a fast-food staple all around the Western world, the drive-thru to a culture unfamiliar with this concept. Furthermore, food development was designed with the goal of making it easier to eat in cars (Chinadaily).

Regardless of the industry a company operates, if global expansion is planned, it is absolutely necessary to examine the culture in which the business is moving. Had Disney or McDonalds decided their American offerings, design, and planning were sufficient for application in other cultures they would have quickly failed. The companies were able to identify the important values, understandings, and tendencies in foreign cultures and make adjustments to enjoy success in those areas. Next time you see Mickey Mouse or those Golden Arches look how their characteristics of that business are a function of the culture you are in.

Works Cited

"Drive-through Tips for China." Chinadaily US Edition. 20 June 2006. Web. 30 Mar. 2011. .

Maanen, John. "Displacing Disney: Some Notes on the Flow of Culture." Qualitative Sociology 15.1 (1992): 5-35. Print.

Veseth, Michael. "5: Globalization As McWorld." Globaloney: Unraveling the Myths of Globalization. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield

Culture Clash: Sprint - Nextel

In the course textbook, Kinicki and Kreitner emphasize the importance of strong organizational culture, or a “set of shared values and beliefs that underlie a company’s identity” (36). They explain that while a number of different organizational cultures can be successful for a company, it is very difficult to merge two companies together whose organizational culture is very different. In fact, Kinicki and Kreitner state that “mergers often fail due to incompatible cultures” (45).

One famous example of a merger that many consider failed was between Sprint and Nextel, which merged in 2005. Sprint acquired Nextel in a $35 billion acquisition, with the idea that the merger would bring a stronger customer base and a strong strategy to help Sprint Nextel lead in communication changes (Sedensky). However, the merger instead brought on a wide array of problems and customer and employee discontent. The two company’s cultures were very distinct, with Nextel known for having a more entrepreneurial culture and Sprint having a more traditional, bureaucratic culture. A Washington Post article written by Kim Hart, two years after the acquisition explains that “The two sharply different cultures have resulted in clashes in everything from advertising strategy to cellphone technologies.” The Washington Post article explains this culture clash with an example, where at a manager’s meeting soon after the merger, the CEO from Nextel excited the crowd with a pep rally style speech and the CEO from Sprint followed up with a formal PowerPoint presentation. This difference in culture continued over time, with Nextel employees feeling that “the aggressive, entrepreneurial style that spurred its early growth had been stamped out by Sprint’s more bureaucratic approach” and Sprint’s employees feeling that Nextel’s more rash decision making was impulsive and apt to cause losses (Hart). The two sides also began to compete for now duplicated positions, creating even more tension. Many Nextel employees began to exit the company, which in turn made Sprint employees feel abandoned (Hart).

When looking at the Competing Values Framework outlined in the book, Sprint seemed to have a hierarchy culture, with a more structured work environment, while Nextel seemed to be in line more with an adhocracy culture, valuing flexibility and the ability to quickly respond to market changes. These organizational cultures completely contradict one another. The adhocracy culture, emphasized by Nextel, has an external focus and values flexibility, while the hierarchy culture emphasized by Sprint, has an internal focus and values control. No wonder the two companies found themselves so at odds with one another. However, it is possible to bring two different cultures together and I think that one of the problems with the Sprint Nextel merger was that they tried so hard to recognize the cultural differences of the two companies that they created a competing, me versus them environment. Instead, they should have focused on identifying the culture for the company as a whole and begun the process of culture change outlined in the text.

Even more importantly, Sprint and Nextel should have considered cultural differences when considering the merger in the first place and thought about the consequences such a merger might bring. Recently, AT&T has announced plans to acquire T-Mobile (Associated Press). While AT&T has cited increased coverage as a strong benefit for the merger, I wonder if they have considered the difference in the two company’s cultures and the effect this might have on the merger’s success. Like, the Sprint - Nextel merger, AT&T - T-Mobile is a merger of a company known for its innovation and creativity (T-mobile) and a company known for its more bureaucratic and traditional company culture (AT&T). Will this merger find more success?