12. Group Decision-Making The spring sun shines brightly on the so-called Google
ID: 384707 • Letter: 1
Question
12. Group Decision-Making
The spring sun shines brightly on the so-called Googleplex, the five-building campus of the hottest Internet search engine on earth. At lunchtime, hundreds of engineers at Google Inc. chow on free fare prepared by the former chef of the Grateful Dead. Kicking back? It’s more like a fuel stop. They eat, paying little heed to co-founder Larry Page as he swoops by on skates. And as evening sets in, those same brainiacs, wedged three to six per office, huddle in quiet conference or patter away at their computers in unblinking concentration. Whether in sneakers or on skates, the Google crowd emits cerebral intensity and a near-palpable sense of urgency.
The company still operates under freewheeling management, a vestige of its peaceful prosperity as a private company. Under a ruling triumvirate, no one exec has clear control. Decisions emerge from three-way negotiations between Schmidt and co-founders Page and Sergey Brin. Engineers, meanwhile, work in the same culture of controlled chaos that built the startup. All are free to pursue pet projects. The result is an engineer’s dream — but hell for planners. Some investors find the approach unsettling. “They do not sound even remotely like a fiercely competitive world-class company, [but] rather kids playing in a sandbox,” says one Google investor, who plans on selling shortly after the IPO.
Considering how rarely co-CEOs have been able to share an executive suite effectively, experts think it’s only a matter of time before the power-sharing setup at Google dissolves. “If multiple people are making decisions, decisions don’t get made,” says David Yoffie, a professor at Harvard Business School. “At Google, there are tens or hundreds of projects going on simultaneously. Ultimately one person has to make a decision.”
Google execs maintain that the company’s freewheeling engineering culture is not a liability but an asset. To offset Microsoft and Yahoo’s crushing advantage in size, scope, and customers, they say, the far smaller Google requires breakthrough innovations. The company, which receives about 1,000 résumés a day, has hired hundreds of engineers and scores of top-ranked PhDs in recent years. By giving them free rein to pursue new ideas, Google expects to come up with services, from e-mail to community networks, that set its larger competitors back on their heels. “What we really talk about is how we can attract and develop this creative culture,” says Schmidt. “Innovation comes from invention, which you cannot schedule.”
Google’s managers rarely tell engineers what projects to tackle. Instead, execs keep a “Top 100” priorities list (which today numbers more than 240 items), and engineers gravitate to issues that interest them, forming fluid working groups that can last weeks or months. Engineers are urged to spend about one day a week working on their own personal research projects, no matter how offbeat, in hopes of sparking the Next Big Thing. “We’re encouraging creativity and tolerating chaos,” says Wayne Rosing, Google’s vice-president for engineering. “We turn that dial all the way over to loud.”
MGT303 EXAM POOL QUESTIONS
To foster a culture of creativity, the company’s campus is a veritable theme park for propeller heads. Engineers unwind by playing roller hockey in the downstairs garage or racing remote-control blimps through the offices. Segway scooters, which retail at $4,000, are parked around campus, offering a novel way to navigate between buildings. Perks are lavish, from two flat-screen monitors on each computer to $800 toilets, equipped with remote controls to adjust seat temperature and water pressure.
• Describe/compare the organization/s in terms of Schein’s definition and three levels of culture.
• Discuss the functions of culture, with examples from the organization/s in question.
• EITHER: Describe the relationship between culture and organizational performance, with examples from the organization/s in question.OR: Describe ways that leaders can affect an organization’s culture, using examples
Explanation / Answer
Solution:- Schein has divided the organizational culture into three main categories which are:-
Artifacts:- these are in fact at the surface. The aspects for example dress which can eb easily discerned but still are not easy to understand.
Espoused values:- These lies under the artifacts and these are mainly the conscious strategies , philosophies and goals.
Basic assumptions and values:- The fundamental or the foundation of culture is mainly expressed by the fundamental underlying assumptions and values which cannot be discern easily due to their existence in the unconscious level. Despite that a better understanding of the occurrence of many phenomenon can be grasped with these . The fundamental assumptions constitutes the inherent aspect of human existence for example nature of human, human relationship, truth, activity and reality.
Answer:- The Basic Function of Culture :-Culture can be seen as a abstract, trivial and pervasive combination of social elements which acts as an all-including form or patterns for living by a certain lay out a foreseeable universe in which a certain person is firmly rooted. With the help of culture, one can make sense of his or her surroundings and thus supporting the transformation from the womb to the new life.
As soon as a child is born , he is taught how to behave formally and informally. Irrespective of the culture, all children earn this exercise quite quickly to how to behave in a manner which is accepted in a certain culture.
Culture also enables a social control with the help of various norms and moves different laws. The culture functions to influence and direct the behavior and life of the individual. The different types of functions are managed with the help of norm or rules formed by a certain society.
Answer:- If the leadership is not transparent or connected to the manpower, then it will be very difficult to observe the actions and behaviors of leaders. Organizational culture and leadership can be seen as the elements in any organization which function in conjunction with each other towards the success of the organization.. The manner in which type company operates how the objectives are going to be accomplished are greatly affected by the culture and leadership.
The role played by the leader in forming the organizational culture is quite significant. Thee behavior and the conduct of the leader motivates the followers to copy him or her and they try to imitate the leaders. If the leader has a highly ethical behavior and conduct, the entire organizational culture will be driven by the high standards of ethical and morality.
Individual versus group decision making has always been the issue of discussion. Search on Internet has helped, confronting with the experimental studies upon the various aspects of the effectiveness of decision making process taken by individual or group. It has been found that there is no delay or no significant difference in decision making between group or individual though a good decision is taken by groups in comparison to individual (Blinder & Morgan, 2000). Besides, Blinder & Morgan also finds that group of women takes faster decision than the group of men. Internet search also shows the shift in decision making process from individual to group and vice versa and no any significant shift is observed (Ambrus et al, 2009).
As far as the comparison is concerned group decision making gets the benefit of shared assumptions without any behavioral bias but there is huge chance of bias and impact of personality traits upon individual decision making process. Also, group decision making process brings the best course of action and become the base for successful leadership.
Advantage of Group decisions
Shared assumptions
Brainstorming on decision option
Unbiased decision
Lesser impact of Bounded awareness
Advantage of individual decisions
Delegation of authority
Quick Decision (though not proven statistically)
Day to day or operational decision should be taken up by individuals and strategic decision should be taken up by group.
Bounded awareness is more prominent in individual decisions but it is nullified in group decision making process because bounded awareness of one manger is compensated by knowledge or information of other managers.
Sources:
https://www.sss.ias.edu/files/papers/econpaper91.pdf
http://www.princeton.edu/~blinder/papers/00NBER7909.pdf
References:
Ambruse A. et al. (2009). Group versus individual decision-making: Is there a shift?
Blinder A.S. , Morgan J. (2000). Are two heads better than one?: An experimental analysis of group vs. Individual decision making.
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.