Google Case

Problem Statement

How does a triumvirate power structure achieve specialized objectives while ensuring conflict results in superordinate goals?

Symptoms

1. POWER: The three executives all have substantial power in decision making which can lead to dysfunctional conflict as to directing company direction.

2. SPECIALIZED ROLES: Each executive has specialized expertise and responsibilities which can cause them to have differing opinions on what direction is best for the company, this can cause dysfunctional conflict.

3. CONFLICT: Dysfunctional conflict can arise when the responsibilities, goals, or expertise of the three executives intersect and are not aligned.

4. SUPERORDINATE GOALS: The predominant goals of the company as a whole which supersede the goals of the individual departments or executives.

Problem Analysis

The first alternative solution to Google's problem with conflict and decision making is to increase employee empowerment. Empowerment is the sharing of power within an organization, if the employees have more power this would lessen the possibility of dysfunctional conflict arising from the clashing of executives in power. The main concept of empowerment is that those who are closest to the work itself should be making the decisions because this would make best use of the employee's skills, abilities, resources and time. There are four key elements of employee empowerment: meaning, competence, self-determination and impact. For empowerment to be fully present organizations must allow all employees to experience all four elements. The organizational benefits of having an empowered employee base are increased production, higher job satisfaction, and less stress.

Empowerment comes in varying degrees; the two dimensions of the job which determine the degree of empowerment are job content and job context. Job content looks at the tasks and procedures necessary for doing a particular job. Job context identifies why the job needs to be done and how it fits into the organizations overall mission, goals, and objectives. The most desirable outcome for Google would be Self-management which involves complete control over job content and context. It must be noted that this process does carry the risk of failure. For complete trust and full empowerment the organization must be prepared to allow degrees of failure from its employees. It is important to remember that organizational empowerment is not shared power, it is about confirming and reinforcing that people have the ability to influence decisions within their sphere of responsibility.

Another important concept related to employee empowerment is participative decision making. This is the process in which those who are affected by decisions have influence in the making of them. When employees are able to participate in the decision making process the organization will find increased creativity, higher job satisfaction and more productivity and the employees will have an increased sense of empowerment.

With an increasingly empowered work force and a flatter leadership comes intergroup conflict, or conflict between groups within the organization. Conflict can have both negative and positive impacts on an organization. Positively, this conflict can lead to increased cohesion, focus and loyalty. Conversely, conflict can cause unhealthy competition between groups and may result in a winner-loser situation. As groups are empowered they fight harder to achieve their individual goals, complete their tasks and obtain the most resources possible. This type of dysfunctional conflict among employee groups costs the company, not only financially but can lead to wasting time to resolve conflict. It takes a charismatic and involved manager to manage the competition and keep the conflict functional. If this type of manager or involvement is not available dysfunction can occur. It is also important to note that empowering the employee base at Google could result in a diminishment of the expert power held by the members of the triumvirate.

Another alternative option to examine is giving one of the three executives chief decision making powers while the other two are delegated to the role of chief advisors. This would result in the chief decision maker increasing their power base through legitimate power. Legitimate power is similar to authority, and is based on position and mutual agreement. It is important that the targets of the empowered decision maker's influence recognize and accept the decision makers authority.

This change will alter the political landscape of the organization. Previously, the three leaders had competing interests and would exercise their substantial power and use various tactics and strategies to push the company towards their suggested platform. This can be described as political behaviour, which can refer to actions not officially sanctioned by the organization to influence others to meet personal goals. Having a single chief decision maker will lessen the extent to which conflict will arise as the other two executives will not have as much power. It is important to note that these two executives will still have substantial influence in decision making but not ultimate power.

Influence is described as "the process of affecting the thoughts, behavior or feelings of another person". The type of influence which would be used in this situation is a type of upward influence, as the two executives would be trying to influence the chief decision maker. There are numerous types of influence tactics but the ones which are most commonly used are consultation, rational persuasion, inspirational appeals, and ingratiation. The methods recommended for Google to use are consultation, or involving all three in the planning and proposition of policy, and rational persuasion or use of logical arguments to persuade the decision maker.

Having a clear-cut decision maker will lead to less jurisdictional ambiguity. The roles of the three executives will be clear and their roles and power will be more defined. This will result in less conflict because employees will know who to go to for particular issues and the three executives will know where the boundary of their power exists.

Using a chief decision maker with two powerful advisors influencing them through consultation and rational persuasion will lead to using more cooperative conflict management styles and as a result will ensure that conflict remains functional. Working through conflict together and solving problems cooperatively can lead to production of new ideas, learning and personal growth.

Examples of uncooperative conflict