The Format Of This Case Differs From The Previous Three Modu
The format of this case differs from the previous three modules and resembles more closely the format of assignments you will see in many of your courses going forward. This is not to say that you should abandon what you have learned about the analytical process of alternating between the abstract and the concrete, the reflective and the active, but this paper will not follow the format of a section on concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualization, and active experimentation. Each of these aspects of analysis should be present, but integrated into the paper as a whole, rather than broken out into distinct sections.
The topic of this case is organizational design. To complete this assignment, we will begin as before, and you should identify an organization you know very well. Then conduct your analysis by addressing the topics below. Do not line up the questions and address them one at a time as in a short-answer test, but rather integrate them into a single coherent commentary and analysis of the organization. A critical part of successful completion of this assignment is for you to demonstrate your ability to employ the concepts introduced in the background material in describing and evaluating the effectiveness of the organizational design. To do this, you will need to draw on the concepts from at least three readings/videos.
This paper should be 4-6 pages long.
Case Questions
Diagram the formal structure of your organization. Identify the various management positions or titles on the chart and indicate the positions or jobs that would report to each. SmartDraw.com ( ) provides free examples, though others are also available via Google. PowerPoint also has templates for organizational charts you can use.
Describe how work is divided (specialization and departmentalization), coordinated (chain of command and span of control), and controlled (centralization and formalization). Is the structure more mechanistic or organic? Describe the informal structure of the organization. How does work actually get done? How does the organization deal with the differentiation-integration issue?
Having completed this analysis, identify three strengths and three weaknesses of the organizational design. If you could suggest one major improvement to the organizational design, what would it be?
Assignment Expectations
Your case paper will be evaluated using the criteria on the assignment rubric: assignment-driven approach, critical thinking, business writing, effective use of information, citing sources, and timeliness.
Paper For Above instruction
Introduction
Organizational design is a fundamental aspect of how companies function, shaping processes, decision-making, and overall effectiveness. Analyzing an organization’s structure provides insights into its strengths and weaknesses, guiding potential improvements. In this paper, I will examine the formal and informal structures of a well-known organization, utilizing concepts from organizational theory to evaluate its design and suggest strategic improvements.
Organization Selected and Formal Structure
The organization chosen for this analysis is Google, known for its innovative culture and complex organizational structure. Using PowerPoint templates, I constructed a detailed organizational chart illustrating Google’s management hierarchy. At the top is the CEO, followed by senior vice presidents overseeing major divisions such as Search, Advertising, Cloud Computing, and Hardware. Each division contains specific departments headed by directors and managers, with various roles reporting accordingly. This multi-tiered structure exemplifies a functional, divisional design that supports both specialization and broad strategic oversight.
In reporting relationships, managers and team leads report to directors, who in turn report to vice presidents, culminating with the CEO. This chain of command facilitates clear authority lines but must also balance flexibility in innovation-driven divisions. The formal structure emphasizes accountability and streamlined decision-making, aligning with Google's emphasis on efficiency and innovation.
Division, Coordination, and Control
The division of work within Google is highly specialized and departmentalized, with clear distinctions among product teams, engineering, marketing, and support functions. Departmentalization occurs both functionally and through product divisions, allowing for focused expertise and innovation. Coordination is achieved through a clear chain of command and span of control, which varies depending on the division’s need for autonomy or oversight. For instance, the hardware division operates with a more centralized control, while other divisions exhibit a flatter hierarchy to foster agility.
Control mechanisms include formal policies and procedures, centralization of critical decisions, and standardized processes to ensure quality and compliance. Google's structure is more organic than mechanistic, emphasizing flexibility, lateral communication, and adaptability—traits essential in tech innovation environments. Informally, Google promotes open communication channels, cross-functional teams, and a culture of collaboration, which facilitate work beyond formal reporting lines.
Work Processes and Differentiation-Integration
Work at Google often occurs through informal networks, spontaneous collaborations, and project-based teams that transcend formal structures. The differentiation-integration issue is addressed through cross-departmental initiatives, company-wide meetings, and internal communication platforms like Google Meet and Slack. These mechanisms ensure that diverse functions work together coherently while maintaining specialization in their core areas.
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Design
Among Google's organizational design strengths are its flexibility and innovation orientation, strong communication channels, and strategic decentralization that promotes entrepreneurial initiative within divisions. These elements foster rapid innovation, employee engagement, and responsiveness to market changes.
However, weaknesses include potential silos formed by divisional separation, complexity in coordination across diverse units, and over-centralization in decision-making in certain areas that may hinder agility. Additionally, formal rules might constrain creativity in some teams, limiting spontaneous innovation.
Recommended Improvement
One major improvement would be to further enhance cross-functional collaboration by establishing dedicated innovation hubs or task forces that facilitate joint projects across divisions. This approach would mitigate silo effects, promote knowledge sharing, and accelerate innovation processes, aligning well with Google's dynamic environment.
Conclusion
In summary, Google’s organizational design combines formal hierarchical elements with a strong informal culture that supports innovation and flexibility. While it benefits from clear structures and strong communication channels, continued efforts to integrate divisions more seamlessly will reinforce its competitive edge. Ongoing evaluation and adaptation of organizational structures are essential in rapidly evolving sectors like technology.
References
- Burns, T., & Stalker, G. M. (1961). The Management of Innovation. London: Tavistock.
- Daft, R. L. (2015). Organization Theory and Design. Cengage Learning.
- Hamel, G., & Breen, B. (2007). The Future of Management. Harvard Business Review Press.
- Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The Social Psychology of Organizations. Wiley.
- Mintzberg, H. (1979). The Structuring of Organizations. Prentice-Hall.
- Roberts, K. H., & Marion, R. (2003). Organization Theory: A Practice-Based Approach. Oxford University Press.
- Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational Culture and Leadership. Jossey-Bass.
- Scott, W. R. (2003). Organizations: Rational, Natural, and Open Systems. Pearson.
- Weick, K. E., & Roberts, K. H. (1993). Collective Mind in Organizations: Heedful Interrelating on Flight Decks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38(3), 357-381.
- Yukl, G. (2010). Leadership in Organizations. Pearson.