Google uses a flat organizational structure with open communication to promote employee happiness. They empower employees and encourage innovation by keeping management decentralized and information sharing widespread. This bottom-up approach contrasts with traditional top-down corporate structures and has helped Google become an attractive employer. By prioritizing internal customer satisfaction, Google maintains high productivity and quality of work. Their diverse, global workforce is given flexibility to succeed.

1. 1
Organizational Structure – Google, Inc.
Stacey Troup
MGT-230
April 20, 2015
University of Phoenix

2. 2
Organizational Structure – Google, Inc.
Flat structure, open communication, employee happiness; this is Google, Inc.
Flat Structure
Google, Inc. started out with a plan to be different. A plan to bring a company into the
foreground that included a vision of flat structure management to allow for personal growth.
Realizing that a company is only as strong as its employees and the ideas that those employees
bring to the table, they truly opened the doors to a diverse workforce and embraced a free
flowing management style that kept everyone in the loop.
We find that when employees, or internal customers, are happy, they are more
productive. What happens when you have happy employees? They give you 110% every day
and their happiness is reflected in the customers you service. The concept may seem sophomoric
at its base, similar to receiving praise from your mother for good grades or cleaning your room,
however, Google has found a way to make it profitable for them while creating a true team
oriented company focused on the future.
Horizontal Structure
Coming from corporate America and working on Wall Street, I am familiar with the
dated theory of top down, horizontal management style. These types of line structures are
antiquated but necessary because of the management in place at these institutions and don’t seem
to have any plans to change anytime soon. While they give departmentalization to their business
units, it is ultimately the Board of Directors that signs off on all documentation, requisitions,
staff additions, bonuses, etc. By taking away the power from the managers in charge of these
organizations, they often experience strife internally with their employees and volatility with
their investors.
Organizational Structure – Google, Inc.

3. 3
On one such example of this, while working for RBC Capital Markets, I experienced the
strife of having someone outside your immediate supervisor decide the fate of your bonus
structure at the end of the year. When these numbers were released, the staff began walking off
the job, one by one. The division was broken up, reengineered and is now 12 people from its
original 54 people and high functioning, money making machine days of yesterday.
This type of antiquated management style would never work at a progressive company
such as Google, Inc. who pride themselves on being a premier place of employment for people
around the world.
Matrix Organizations
Companies such as those of Wall Street, could benefit from a matrix structure. By
delegating these responsibilities to a specific business unit it serves the best of both worlds by
providing the business units the freedom to effectively do their jobs, make their own decisions
and become more self reliant, it would also alleviate the overburdened hand of the upper
management teams, allowing them to focus on their primary goals (Structuring Your
Organization, 2004-2010). Final authority on investment allocations and redemptions should
ultimately require the signatures of the members of the Board as they currently do, but give the
department the reign to make decisions without always being under the heavy hand of
micromanagement. Failure to allow the departments to self manage creates problems “because a
manager will not be able to see if what they were responsible for managing was executed
effectively to create the outcome desired” (Campbell, Moore, Nayyar, & Boykins, 2013).

4. 4
Organizational Structure – Google, Inc.
Organizations such as this are focused on the external customer and not as much on the
internal customer. As we learned from watching videos on Southwest Airlines and Continental
Airlines, sometimes our original vision of how the company should be run needs to be
reevaluated if the company is to regain market share and retain employees.
Management for the People
Google was big enough to learn from larger companies mistakes. By structuring their
customer based company, they also included their internal customer. Because they realized the
vision of their company and the future of its success depended upon the employees and the ideas
that they may bring to the table, they opened this flat structure up by breaking down a lot of the
corporate walls that hold people back.
Taking the classic top down structure and turning it around, Google decided on a bottom-
up style of flat management that allowed for greater expression, innovation and diversity of its
employees. “To make this work – and keep on working – (Google) demands greater flexibility
than many companies achieve” (N.A., 2002).
Diversity is key to the employees at Google. The company routinely holds hiring fares
and has offices in over 40 countries. They pride themselves on finding talent in unusual places
and this has proven successful to them since their inception.
Conclusion
Embracing more current management styles proves benefitial to companies willing to
adapt them. The increased productivity of the employees will be seen immediately, the public
view of your company will strenghten and you will find your business improves. This is because
when your employees are happy, it shows. Consider the model of Southwest Airlines. How
Organizational Structure – Google, Inc.

5. 5
many times have you flown the airline and had a perky flight attendant making you laugh before
take off? It is because companies such as Southwest Airlines embrace their management styles
as a part of their vision and mission for the future and they find success (and profits)
(Destination CEO: Southwest Airlines).
After a review of these management styles I am now in the job market and will only look
for companies who have a management style that fits my personality. Some people need the
rigid structure of a top down, micromanaged organization (such as that of gangs) because they
lack the drive for success and are only task oriented.
Departmentalization can work for larger firms looking to centralize the tasks to the
departments at hand and let them run as their own entities and human resources plays a major
part in the success of employee retention.
Remembering that effective planning of an organization relies on the happiness of the
employees, their comfort, stability and ability to carry out the tasks given to them from
management. If we stifle progress of our employees, such as that of a classic horizontal
pyramid, we create animosity and angst among the employees who are always clawing to get to
the top of the pyramid, often without success.
One type of management is not appropriate for all companies. Those mom and pop
companies are almost always top down with delegated managers doing exactly what the owners
say. However, when we embrace new management styles we can begin to move forward as a
cohesive, happy company who is poised for the future and who holds service, customer
satisfaction and employee happiness close to their heart. When we create truly cohesive teams,
productivity rises. Teams are most effective when working in an organization such as the
Organizational Structure – Google, Inc.
management style of Google. This is because they feel that their voice has value and that they

6. 6
are heard. When you love your job, it shows. This could not be more true of the employees of
Google and they have the originators and the management style in place to thank for it.

7. 7
References
Campbell, S., Moore, M., Nayyar, S., & Boykins, C. (2013). An empirical study of leadership
styles. Journal of Economic Development, Management, I T, Finance, and Marketing, , 5(2), 1-
31 . Retrieved from Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1506446864?
accountid=35812
Destination CEO: Southwest Airlines. (n.d.). Business Week . Retrieved from
www.mhlearningsolutions.com
N.A. (2002). Google grows on people: Bottom‐up leadership and minimalist management inspire
innovation", Strategic Direction. 29 , 16 - 18. Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Retrieved
from http://www.emeraldinsight.com.contentproxy.phoenix.edu/doi/full/10.1108/SD-08-2013-
0052#_i9
Structuring Your Organization. (2004-2010). Retrieved from
https://d3qlakwpo3n83o.cloudfront.net/content/public/50V101227000222781/transcripts/59d46e
32-c2f9-4047-be9f-
e6b68a58cdaf/Structuring_Your_Organization_uZHn01RE3_r1xBcFJ_8g1A_transcript.pdf