Open system perspective

The organizational effectiveness can be described as the efficiency which is used by the company to meet its objectives. It implies an organization to produce a product without any wastage. In other words, the organizational effectiveness not limited to cutting costs and increasing workout but it is the capacity of an organization to produce anticipated results with the least spending of time, money, energy and substantial resources. The success of a business is not only measured by financial performance but it also comprises long-term planning and internal structure. The components which lead to organizational effectiveness are leadership, communication, responsibility, delivery performance, and measurement.

The organizational effectiveness is the extent to which an organization achieves its stated goals. The company can be considered effective only if it fits well with the external environment, when the internal subsystems are efficient and effective and when it satisfies the needs of the key stakeholders. This report includes the organizational effectiveness of Google. In order to be truly effective Google addresses and embraces key perspectives like open system perspective, learning perspective and stakeholder relationships. Another factor which impacts organizational effectiveness is workplace culture. It refers to the shared values and assumptions within the company. It even comprises attitudes, custom, tradition, values which differentiate one group from another.

Open system perspective

The open-system perspective of organizational effectiveness is one of the initial ways of thinking about Google. The open system perspective views the company as composite organisms that alive within the external environment. As a part of the open system, Google relies on the external environment for the resources like employees, raw materials, material, financial resources and equipment (Butler, O’Broin, Lee & Senior, 2016). The system perspective also defines numerous subsystems within the company like processes, work units, and social dynamics.

These subsystems convert the input into various outputs with the assistance of technology. Some outputs may be valued by the external output whereas some other outputs have contrary effects. The company even obtains response from the external environment concerning the assessment of its outputs and the availability of the future inputs (Jiang & Liu, 2015).

As per the open-systems perspective, Google can monitor its environments by maintaining a close fit with the varying conditions. The one way is to do by exploring new prospects to protect needed outputs. For instance, various companies face the issue in finding sufficient employees, but Google has identified numerous ways to make certain that it has sufficient qualified staff.  The successful organizations even redesign outputs in order to remain attuned with demands from the external environment. For instance, Google adopts environmental friendly practices to make a sense towards environmental responsibility. It is because the company will fail if it does not detect the varying customer needs (Bustinza, Vendrell-Herrero, Perez-Arostegui & Parry, 2016).

Leaning perspective

As per the organizational learning perspective, organizational effectiveness is influenced by the organization’s capability to obtain, stake, use and stock appreciated knowledge.  The intellectual capital is a company’s standard of knowledge comprising human capital, physical capital and relationship capital. Firstly, human capital is the knowledge, skills, and capabilities which are carried by the employees in their mind. The human capital has been defined as valuable, exceptional, difficult to imitate and non-substitutable (Blakey & Abramowitz, 2016). For instance, Google makes sure that it asks the employees for their different opinions as such opinions are valued and encouraged. It is appreciated just because employees help the organization in determining opportunities and minimizing threats in the external environment.

Learning perspective

On the other hand, structural capital comprises the knowledge apprehended and engaged in the organization’s schemes and structures like documents of work process and physical outline of the production line. The structural capital also comprises the organization’s finished products (Barry & Wilkinson, 2016). It is because the knowledge can be dug out by taking them apart to realize how they work and assembled. For instance, reverse engineering. The relationship capital is the value derivative from an organization’s product image, goodwill and the blend of relationships which organizational members maintain with the people external  organization.

The knowledge acquisition is basically sharing and using by engaging in the organizational learning. The knowledge attainment arises when the data is taken into the organization from the outside environment. For instance, Google acquires knowledge by appointing the best talent and buying companies. Whereas, knowledge sharing is basically dissemination of knowledge throughout the organization. for instance, Google inspires knowledge sharing by organizing employees into the team so that they can share information as a part of the job. On the other side, knowledge use is the implementation of knowledge in order to improve the organization’s effectiveness. Google encourages its employees to apply knowledge and encourage them to experiment with the knowledge (Greenberg, 2017).

Stakeholder relationships

The stakeholders of the Google are diverse as it has wide products which can be categorized into Google search, Google class, Google fiber internet, and cable television services. The stakeholders of the company comprise users, employees, advertisers, investors, governments and other communities which distress or are affected by the organization’s purposes and actions. The stakeholders comprise anyone with a post in the organization like employees, shareholders, suppliers, advertisers, communities, consumers, government and the interested groups.

The spirit of the stakeholder’s perception is to take into account the actions that affect others, what they comprehend, accomplish and please the interest of the stakeholders. The stakeholder perspective identifies the open system perspective, it classifies special people and social entities in both the external and internal environment. It also identifies that stakeholder relations are vibrant and they can be conveyed and succeeded (Gagné, Sharma & De Massis, 2014).

It is challenging to understand, manage and satisfy the stakeholder’s interest as stakeholders have conflict interests. Google does not have full-time resources to please every stakeholder to the completest. So the organizational leaders are required to select how much priority should be given to each group. It is an important to factor to favor stakeholders with more power. It is considered that the most powerful stakeholders extant the greatest threat and opportunity for the company’s existence (M. Taylor, Cornelius & Colvin, 2014).

Although, the stakeholder’s power should not be only measures for determining organizational strategy and resource allocation. Ignorance towards less powerful stakeholders can result in motivating them to become more powerful by pursuing the support of the government. It can irritate to the more powerful stakeholders if the weaker’ interest is ignored and norms and the standards of the society are violated. In order to accomplish the interest of the varied stakeholders, it is required to trust on the personal and organizational values for the direction.

Stakeholder relationships

Workplace culture

The workplace culture impacts to the organizational effectiveness. It is referred to the shared values and assumptions within Google. It is the entirety of the attitudes, customs, traditions, values which differentiates one group of people from another. Google has become a leading example of workplace culture. The organizational culture offers a framework regarding the behaviour of the employees. The workplace culture establishes clear spirit and values for the organization (Conger, 2017).

Google employees work as a team and its teamwork is effective for the productivity, inventiveness, and success of the workers and the company. The company constantly innovates and experiments with its culture. The organization is having core values which can be communicated effectively and discusses with the employees so that they consider themselves part of the organization.

The leadership and management style encourages collaboration and communication. It creates a sum of attitudes, customs, traditions, and values. The employees have equal opportunities at Google in order to make progress. The clear goals set by the company and rewards have a valuable role in developing a strong culture. It has been considered that the motivated employees are an area of focus as they have clear goals that can work towards (Ahmadi, Nami & Barvarz, 2014).

A positive workplace culture is essential for raising a sense of pride among the employees. When the employees take pride then they like to invest their efforts in the future of an organization. As a result, it creates opportunities and benefits Google. The identification of the employees who actively contributes to creating a positive work culture encourages other employees to do the same. Such employees represent the customs, traditions, and values of the organization (Mahadeen, Al-Dmour, Obeidat & Tarhini, 2016).  

Recommendations

Google is recommended to make appropriate use of human resources in order to enhance organizational effectiveness. It can help a company to cope-up with the open-system perspective. The human resource personnel provides assistance by designing new business strategies which aim to improve the effectiveness of an organization. Getting human professionals involved in the design and execution of the changes can actually improve Google. It is recommended to focus on the education and growth of the individual and different groups.

The strengths and weaknesses of the different professionals should be recognized for making a plan of action to improve the learning perspective of Google. The education of the professionals in the different areas should be considered before making any changes to an organization (Dou, Chen, Lu, Li & Wang, 2018). It helps in focusing on the growth of the company by forming effective teams. The customers should be kept in the mind at the time of assessing the needs and interests of the customers. The customers are required to fill in surveys and answer questions about the services and products offered by the Google. It is equally helpful in finding out what is wanted by the stakeholders regarding the products and the services. Such changes help a company in improving effectiveness

The organisation is needed to identify an appropriate level of the quality of the products and services. The focus should be given on the balanced quality along with the cost-effective solutions (Swanepoel, Botha & Rose-Innes, 2015). The technology has an important role in the organizational effectiveness. The use of tablets, smartphones and computers should be made in order to improve the efficiency of an organization. The use of soft wares and tools help to actively work on the specific tasks (Thomas & Gupta, 2018).

Conclusion

The perspectives influencing organizational efficiency are analyzed with the increasing importance. The organization can successfully enhance its effectiveness by creating rights plans to accomplish resources. The organizational efficiency is the degree of success in producing the highest possible outputs. The three perspectives are addressed of the organization in concern to the organizational effectiveness. These three perspectives open system, learning, and stakeholder relationships critically analyse the organizational effectiveness. The workplace culture forms clear spirit and values for the organization. It offers a framework regarding the behaviour of the employees at the workplace. A positive workplace culture at workplace raises a sense of pride among the employee

References

Ahmadi, S., Nami, Y., & Barvarz, R. (2014). The relationship between spirituality in the workplace and organizational citizenship behavior. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 114, 262-264.

Barry, M., & Wilkinson, A. (2016). Pro?social or pro?management? A critique of the conception of employee voice as a pro?social behaviour within organizational behaviour. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 54(2), 261-284.

Blakey, S. M., & Abramowitz, J. S. (2016). The effects of safety behaviors during exposure therapy for anxiety: Critical analysis from an inhibitory learning perspective. Clinical Psychology Review, 49, 1-15.

Bustinza, O. F., Vendrell-Herrero, F., Perez-Arostegui, M., & Parry, G. (2016). Technological capabilities, resilience capabilities and organizational effectiveness. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 1-23.

Butler, M. J., O’Broin, H. L., Lee, N., & Senior, C. (2016). How organizational cognitive neuroscience can deepen understanding of managerial decision?making: A review of the recent literature and future directions. International Journal of Management Reviews, 18(4), 542-559.

Conger, J. A. (2017). Motivate performance through empowerment. The Blackwell Handbook of Principles of Organizational Behaviour, 143-155.

Dou, K., Chen, Y., Lu, J., Li, J., & Wang, Y. (2018). Why and when does job satisfaction promote unethical pro?organizational behaviours? Testing a moderated mediation model. International Journal of Psychology.

Gagné, M., Sharma, P., & De Massis, A. (2014). The study of organizational behaviour in family business. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 23(5), 643-656.

Greenberg, J. (2017). Promote procedural justice to enhance acceptance of work outcomes. The Blackwell Handbook of Principles of Organizational Behaviour, 189-204.

Jiang, J. Y., & Liu, C. W. (2015). High performance work systems and organizational effectiveness: The mediating role of social capital. Human Resource Management Review, 25(1), 126-137.

1. Taylor, C., J. Cornelius, C., & Colvin, K. (2014). Visionary leadership and its relationship to organizational effectiveness. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 35(6), 566-583.

Mahadeen, B., Al-Dmour, R. H., Obeidat, B. Y., & Tarhini, A. (2016). Examining the effect of the Organization’s Internal Control System on Organizational Effectiveness: A Jordanian empirical study. International Journal of Business Administration, 7(6), 22.

Swanepoel, S., Botha, P., & Rose-Innes, R. (2015). Organizational behaviour: exploring the relationship between ethical climate, self-efficacy and hope. Journal of Applied Business Research, 31(4), 1419.

Verses as there are wide array of produc Organizational cynicism–what every manager needs to know. Development and Learning in Organizations: An International Journal, 32(2), 16-19.