Emerald (2002). Googling out of control: Can Google's chaos management style ensure continuing success? Strategic direction.23 (8): 25-27.
This article presents one of the many dissenting voices regarding Google’s organizational style. The purpose of the article according to the authors is to review development sin management styles around the globe. From this analysis, the authors highlight practical implications as derived from case studies and research. The article posits that the unprecedented success by Google has afforded the chaotic organizational style a new respectability. This is because it is a style that has not been the favorite for top performing companies until the inception of Google. The author explores the allure of chaotic style as seen in the twenty first century.
The importance of this article to the analysis of style and system at Google is the fact that even though the article also touches on general perspectives regarding the topic, the authors use Google as the personification of chaotic style in management. The implication of this is that the information given by the author is directly relevant to the analysis. Additionally, the implications of the findings as reported in the article are very enlightening and enhancing to the development of the paper. They give insights into the system that has influenced he growth of one of the giants in global business.
Iyer, B. & Davenport, T. (2008). Reverse engineering Google’s innovation machine. Boston. Harvard Business Review.
Iyer and Davenport underscore the importance of innovation as a system at Google. The authors contend that Google stands out from other internet based companies in many ways. Some of these, as highlighted by the authors include business architecture, experimentation, participative product development, information technology and analytical decision making. Unlike other authors, Iyer and Davenport posit that Google has achieved a mechanism that perfectly balances the obvious chaotic ideation process with necessary, rigorous and data driven methods of evaluating ideas before availing funds. The authors also delineate the difference between Google and other companies with regards to innovation.
According to the author, Google has almost unlimited resources with regards to innovation. Its employees are encouraged to generate ideas by the fact that funding will be availed to develop the ideas into fully fledged products. This position by the authors underscores the relationship between these two systems at Google. Additionally, by holding this position, the author presents a position that is challenged by other authors whose literature is used in the development of this analysis, especially in the view of continuity and sustainability of success at Google. This presents arguments and counterarguments, two elements that help develop the analysis by offering divergent perspectives.
Jackson, S. (2012). Human resource management. Eleventh International Edition. Boston. South-Western Cengage Learning.
In this regard, the author highlights the company as one of the best companies to work for in the United States of America. The author also highlights the number of people that seek employment at Google annually. This is testament of the importance of the human resource component at Google. The literature in this book concerning the human resource management at Google is not laced with witty commentary compared to the article by Lashinsky. Nonetheless, the subtle manner in which the author presents his facts resonates with the grandeur with which the human resource component at Google executes its operations. This book is important for this analysis as it offers an informed opinion on the importance of human resources as one of the systems at Google.
Lashinsky, A. (2006). Chaos by design. The inside story of disorder, disarray, and uncertainty at Google. And why it's all part of the plan. (They hope.)
This article on a reputed business magazine is an acknowledgement of the organizational style employed at Google. The author of the article reports in a rather hilarious manner. However, this does not mask the chaotic style in which this organization carries out its business operations. The author underscores the fact that this model seems more fun seeking that profit seeking. This observation notwithstanding, the author observes that the company rakes in over ten billion dollars annually and has a worth of over one hundred and twenty five billion dollars. The article also highlights the environment inside Google’s sprawling headquarters. In the view of the author, the environment is the epitome of chaos as evidenced by employees prying in motorized scooters, volleyball courts and free cafeterias.
In the words of the author, failure coexists harmoniously with triumph at Google. Ideas in this company come from technocrats and engineers who receive minimal supervision and are not concerned whether their products will fetch any money in the market. However, the author decries the need for a change of tact at Google. This is because the author does not see the same impact that Google.com had in the many fully fledged products that Google has released. This article is important for the analysis of systems and style at Google because over and above the clear adoration of the author, he also enlists a dissenting voice. These different perspectives will prove critical in the analysis of the suitability of the systems and style at Google.