Scribd
Upload
0 views3 pages

Slide 1

The document analyzes Google's organizational structure within Alphabet Inc., highlighting its functional and product-based subdivisions, decentralized decision-making, and emphasis on innovation. It aligns Google's structure with various organizational theories, noting both facilitators and hindrances to achieving goals. The conclusion emphasizes the strategic benefits of Google's innovative design despite existing challenges.

Uploaded by

Deep Loya
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0 views3 pages

Slide 1

The document analyzes Google's organizational structure within Alphabet Inc., highlighting its functional and product-based subdivisions, decentralized decision-making, and emphasis on innovation. It aligns Google's structure with various organizational theories, noting both facilitators and hindrances to achieving goals. The conclusion emphasizes the strategic benefits of Google's innovative design despite existing challenges.

Uploaded by

Deep Loya
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

Slide 1: Title Slide

 Title: Analysis of Google’s Organizational Structure

 Subtitle: In the Context of Organizational Design

 Additional Elements: Logos, sleek design, and presenter’s name.

Slide 2: Introduction

 Overview of Google as a subsidiary of Alphabet Inc.

 Highlights of Google's technological and organizational success.

 Purpose of the analysis: Explore alignment with organizational theories.

Slide 3: Overview of Google’s Structure

 Key Features:

o Functional structure (semi-autonomous units).

o Product-based subdivisions (e.g., YouTube, Google Cloud).

o Cross-functional teams.

o Decentralized decision-making.

o Flat hierarchy.

Slide 4: Alignment with Organizational Theories

 Bureaucracy (Max Weber):

o Clear functional divisions.

o Flexibility diverges from traditional hierarchies.

 Contingency Theory:

o Structure aligns with tech sector demands.

o Example: Pivot during COVID-19.

 Organic Structures (Burns and Stalker):

o Collaboration and flexibility.

o Example: AI-driven search features.

Slide 5: Facilitators to Goals

 Innovation Culture:
o Risk-taking and cross-functional collaboration.

o Example: Google X projects.

 Employee Empowerment:

o ‘20% time’ policy and bottom-up initiatives.

 Agility:

o Rapid adaptation to market trends.

 Scalability:

o Growth of product-based units like Google Cloud.

Slide 6: Hindrances to Goals

 Coordination Challenges:

o Conflicts between functional and product priorities.

 Decision-Making Delays:

o Slower launches due to alignment requirements.

 Role Ambiguity:

o Overlapping responsibilities in cross-functional teams.

 Silos:

o Risk of knowledge-sharing issues.

Slide 7: Lessons from Google’s Structure

 Balance innovation and efficiency.

 Empower employees for creativity and ownership.

 Flexibility is key in dynamic environments.

 Addressing complexity with robust communication and conflict resolution.

Slide 8: Comparison to Class Discussions

 Differences:

o Agile approach vs. rigid hierarchies.

o Employee input prioritized over top-down decision-making.

 Similarities:

o Functional specialization.
o Alignment with environmental demands (contingency theory).

Slide 9: Conclusion

 Google’s structure demonstrates the power of innovative design.

 Balance of autonomy and coordination fosters innovation and market responsiveness.

 Challenges exist but are outweighed by strategic benefits.

You might also like