Technology is a fast growing industries in the world and thus mounting the pressure to
remain the best in this field. The case study surrounds the technology sector where the managers
of the company, Google, are involved in a new project that requires research to find out how to
enhance team working in the company (Duhigg, 2016, p. 1). Being in the technology sector, it is
important for them to thrive because of the increasing changes due to technology. As such they
have to stay ahead of their competitors by creating the best teams since technology has become
the core of commercial culture all over the globe.
Being a large organizational sector, companies like Google face managerial challenges
which if not well taken care of can to the collapse of the company. Some of these challenges
include the lack of the art to integrate employees from totally different backgrounds to have a
goal-oriented team. Another challenge is lack proper communication channels in large
organizational sectors. As such information might be distorted by the time it gets to those at the
bottom and hence delays in meeting the company’s objectives (Duhigg, 2016, p. 1). Challenges
may also come as a result of lack of comprehensive understanding of the firm’s code of ethics
due to the large organizational setup. Also, large organizational structures may face challenges in
incorporating all the stakeholders and hence the interests of the shareholders may become
Case study-Google 2
compromised. The company that is being featured in this case is Google which is technology
oriented. The specific case dates back to 2012 where research was conducted to analyze the
reason why some Google’s teams were performing while others were not (Duhigg, 2016, p. 1).
Google Inc. is an American based company which was founded in1998 (Taylor 2005, p.
1925) . It is a technology based company that deals with the provision of internet-based products
and services. Some of the services offered by Google include online commercials that involve
cloud computing as well as software (Taylor 2005, p. 1941) . The main service revolves around
the placement of Ad Words where they place commercials near the result search engine. The
founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin possess14 % of the company shares but they have 56 %
voting powers (Taylor 2005, p. 1919) . By 2007 the company had an estimate of running more
than 1 million servers across the world. In 2013, the company was listed as the most viewed
website (Taylor 2005, p. 1950) . The main aim of the company is to consolidate information from
all parts of the world in a more accessible and useful way. As such individuals can retrieve any
information from Google.
To allow innovation and growth of its employees, Google encourages team working to
enhance the generation of ideas. As such the top executives had to conduct research to find out
the best ways to create the best teams. This research was named project Aristotle and the main
idea behind it was to find why some teams were making it while other teams were lagging
behind. According to the results given by the group assigned to project Aristotle, there are norms
that shape a team which is different for every team (Seibert et al., 2011, p. 985) . As such the key
Case study-Google 3
thing is determining the various norms that matter the most to a certain team to make it most
successful. The responses given by the employees during the survey indicated that teamwork was
of no major importance to the employees.
Identification of Issues
From the presented case there are several issues that can be seen. The first issue is that
team members have a feeling that their work as a team is not recognized. The teams also find it
difficult to express their real feelings during working and therefore do not find easy to socialize
within the team for proper working. As such teams become a difficult affair where people are
unable to unleash their full potential. Also, as stated by Matt some team members felt
intimidated by their team leaders and hence could raise or contribute to ideas and discussions
(Duhigg, 2016, p. 1) . Other issues included lack of understanding by team members on the
essence of the team working.
This issues and problems were caused by lack of managerial competencies by team
leaders. Team leaders lack the capability to coordinate their team members by enhancing
communication systems (Duhigg, 2016, p. 1) . As well team members have not also been
sensitized on how to utilize different modes of communicating to make team working fun and
effective. As such, there lacks collaboration control and competitive nature in the groups. Team
leaders should, therefore, focus on developing others as well as mentoring their team members.
They should apply the managerial theory from CSR to enhance team working accountability and
social performance within the teams (Duhigg, 2016, p. 1) .
Case study-Google 4
The positives about the leadership in Aristotle project is that the leader is focused, and
there are no signs of chitchat idling, and hence the objectives are met within the scheduled time.
As such it does not allow social loafing thus increasing efficiency. The other positive is that
managers like Matt took the initiative to better his team through the results from the survey.
However, I made no bear positive impact on his team leaders, but he was still determined. He
exercised communication by resourcing for feedback from the team players. The negatives
include that team member’s feel left out by their team leader because they are not allowed to
socialize in the teams and get a chance of understanding themselves and their colleagues. Also,
the results provided by the research group did work well with Matt’s teams and hence an
indication that they should be enforced for every team (Duhigg, 2016, p. 1) .
The first alternative to the highlighted issues is to change the relationship between team
members and their leaders. This can be done by elimination of communication barriers which
inhibit proper communication and understanding (Gressgård, 2011, p. 103) . Communication will
help the employees feel accommodated, and they will know that their contributions are
important. As such in the case of disputes or problems, they will be able to generate solutions
together. As well employees will also be able to interact freely and hence make group and
teamwork fun and productive.
The other alternative is let the teams generate their own norms and conformations instead
of enforcing a set of conditions. Team members are likely to work better under their own terms
because they can understand one another and enhance collaboration (Gressgård, 2011, p. 103) .
When people work as friends, they eliminate chances of backstabbing and blame games. The
final alternative is to establish a stable environment where the teams that are not performing are
Case study-Google 5
allowed to undergo a gradual change in their team performance (Gressgård, 2011, p. 119) . As
such this will allow them to learn from successful teams without feeling hurried. They will there
be more successful in identifying their group norms as they gel up together.
Given that Google Inc. is a successful organization, the resources needed for enhancing
the relationship between employees and their leaders. The primary goal, in this case, is to find
out how best teams can be formed. As such the best solution is to make sure the level of
interaction between leaders and employees is based on proper communication and not a bossy
one (Jackson and Joshi, 2011, p. 651 ) . This move will make them feel more appreciated and
their contributions acknowledged. Google can, therefore, star by training the managers on the
different forms of managerial competencies especially on communication with employees. As
well employees should be sensitized on the importance of teamwork and how to identify the
different norms that contribute to successful teams.
According to Hartman, various communications should be enhanced in a company to
establish relationships between employees and their bosses. Employees feel empowered to air
their views and hence generation of ideas. As such there is no better way to reward employees
than make them know how much their inputs matter. Thus, they are encouraged to become
innovative and do not out of obligation. Since Google is the large organization, it would benefit
most from this setting where leaders will interact directly with employees (Jackson and Joshi,
2011, p. 655 ) . Conflicts based on various chains of command will also be avoided since there
will be friendly environment whereby it will not matter where commands come from. Middle-
Case study-Google 6
level managers will, therefore, be able to lead their teams without worry of conflicting
The first recommendation would be to create a culture whereby employees are given the
chance to discuss what they feel about their teams and how they function. This discussion will
give them the chance to express their true beliefs about teamwork. As well team members should
also be required to give their views on individuality. In the process, the members will develop
certain norms that exist within their teams as well as the strengths and weaknesses of
individuality and team working (Piña, Martínez and Martínez, 2008, p. 8)) . This exercise
should take a day or two and will give insight to the management on where to start. During the
process team leaders will be required to encourage the employees to give their true views and
discuss how they could make their teams better. As such open discussions will be established and
this should be done on repetitive occasions to enhance the relationship between employees and
the leaders (Piña, Martínez and Martínez, 2008, p. 8) . The long-term action should be based
on the data collected during the open discussions based on the views given by employees. As
such the long term process should by education and training for leaders and the employees. The
training should be done in setting that involves both the leaders and employees. Such a setting
will make easy to allow for interaction and generation of ideas in a combined effort. Leaders and
their juniors will be given case studies to solve together and demonstrate collaboration and
effective communication (Piña, Martínez & Martínez, 2008, p. 8) . These interactions should
be taken to the workplace and applied in solving of companies issues where employees are
allowed to question and air different ideas.
Case study-Google 7
List of References
Duhigg, C., 2016. What Google learned from its quest to build the perfect team. The New York
Times Magazine, p.NA–NA.
Gressgård, L.J., 2011. Virtual team collaboration and innovation in organizations. Team
Performance Management, 17(1/2), pp.102–119.
Jackson, S.E. & Joshi, A., 2011. Work team diversity. APA handbook of industrial and
organizational psychology, Vol 1: Building and developing the organization. APA
Handbooks in Psychology., 1(20), pp.651–686.
Case study-Google 8
Piña, M.I.D., Martínez, A.M.R. & Martínez, L.G., 2008. Teams in organizations: a review on
team effectiveness. Team Performance Management, 14(1/2), pp.7–21.
Seibert, S.E., Wang, G. & Courtright, S.H., 2011. Antecedents and consequences of
psychological and team empowerment in organizations: A meta-analytic review. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 96(5), pp.981–1003.
Taylor, J., 2005. The next generation of workers in Australia: their views on organizations, work
and rewards. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16(10),