Google is a globally successful company that aspires for excellence via innovation and continual research and innovation activities to develop cutting-edge goods and solutions. According to some accounts, Sergey Brin objected to nearly everything during that first session, but he had formed a partnership by the following year. Yahoo was a profitable organization during its founding and early years. Still, its achievement progressively deteriorated and eventually failed, to the point where only yahoo mail is operational as of this month, and all other activities have been shut down. Yahoo is a global leader in internet and digital media services and was one of the original internet search companies. The company was founded in 1994 by Jerry Yang and David Filo. Its service portfolio continues to expand and be differentiated. Electronic mail services, news portals, social networking goods, a finance engine, and a web directory are all included in the search engine. Content sharing, expert networks, and communications are all part of the social media section. The company’s mission is to provide users with individualized digital experiences across locations, devices, and advertisers.
Organizational structure and culture
The way individuals interact within a firm is referred to as the organization’s culture. Employee perceptions, actions, and knowledge are shaped by organizational culture, which relates to management’s shared viewpoints.
The efficiency of Google LLC’s organizational structure and organizational culture in delivering excellence in research is related to the company’s performance. The cross-functional organizational structure of Google is a matrix corporate culture with a significant degree of flatness, which describes the general structure that supports Google’s productivity and sustainability (Doina, et al., 2002). This shows that, despite many workers, there remain possibilities for everyone to fight for personal advancement. Google’s workplace culture is considered flexible because workers can operate when and how they want. They can have a relaxing time at their workplaces during working hours and promote trust and collaboration to mentor one another. The organization’s competencies and cultural features are influenced by how the structure and culture connect.
Yahoo’s organizational structure is a tall and typical hierarchical structure that classifies each hierarchy level; this is a significant contrast from Google’s structure. There is a risk that workers will not have enough prospects for advancement. Increased rewards mark yahoo’s work culture for employees who work long shifts, implying that they are responsible for working hard and being psychologically robust (Stone, et al., 2016). They also encourage teamwork through group activities and workplace celebrations of accomplishments and breakthroughs. Yahoo’s organizational structure is a hybrid of regional, functional, and product organizations. This is evident on the organization’s page, which lists the leaders of many divisions classified geographically and others functionally.
Yahoo’s vision statement is brief and forthright. This infers the enterprise hasn’t utilized broad discussions and discussions to impart its viewpoints and positions to the overall population and critical gatherings. The shared vision ought to be succinct and intensive, conveying the quintessence of the organization and its future targets to help workers get the organization’s way of thinking and course.
The mode of communication adopted by both organizations and employee interaction
Google allows its staff to interact in various ways, including written communication through hard copies, electronic documentation, internal communication apps, emails, group chat, and so on. Staff meetings, one-on-one contacts, and water-cooler talks are all examples of verbal communication.
Yahoo uses standard methods of communication with its employees, such as emails, memos, emails, team meetings, and so on. However, due to the hierarchical corporate structure, adequate communication is lacking.
The leadership and management style do these organizations prefer/follow
Google’s leadership style is known as shared leadership, and it is a mix of the previous approaches. Since Page and Eric Schmidt had a unique style, the company’s culture was created by combining both. Initially, the organization was more laid-back, focusing solely on finding and elevating outstanding engineers. The corporation’s employees are recruited as graduate engineers, taught, nurtured as managers, and given authority to perform. They encouraged decentralized leadership in terms of management to accommodate everyone.
The company’s leaders are not required to be Yahoo employees, but they must be inspirational and excellent communicators. However, the executives could not keep the firm in a growth mode, and several management actions, such as the elimination of work-from-home options for staff, were controversial. Per the Yahoo CEO, she is among the top CEOs who recognize the importance of excellent communication in boosting efforts to promote an organization’s overall performance by assuring that a skilled labor force produces optimal productivity.
Google and Yahoo have good transformational and transactional leadership capabilities because they effectively govern via changes by ensuring that people accept them. The reality that the CEO believes emotional intelligence abilities are vital aspects of their leadership backs up this assessment.
Relation of the success and failure of the organization due to the organizational culture, structure, and management style
Organizational structure, management style as well as its culture is crucial for any organization, as evidenced by Google’s leadership style, organizational structure, and managerial style, which has helped them expand and continuously evolve with new goods/services, establishing them as leading companies and the best place to work. Yahoo’s collapse was due to its hierarchical structure, strict management style, and culture (Stone, et al., 2016). As per Forbes, associations with fantastic cultures develop income multiple times quicker than those without. As per a new Deloitte review, 82% of members feel culture might give an upper hand.
The HR Strategic planning, recruitment and selection strategy, performance/ talent management strategy of both organizations
Google gives cash for research into new goods and services and hiring from top universities across the world with attractive salary packages and a flat organizational structure that allows workers to grow and evolve.
Yahoo lacks innovation and quality development, specialist recruitment, and a hierarchical structure that provides employees with fewer chances.
We must keep in mind that while leadership and culture are different in the actual world, they have the same meaning. When I look at Google’s HR strategy, I see a diverse and capable workforce that doesn’t require much management. Despite its contradictory behaviors, Google LLCC appears to fulfill 95% of the quality function critical to economic progress (Vozz, 2017).
Human resource management is often recognized as one of the most vital element of any company committed to professional growth. In today’s competitive global economy, organizations strive to gain a competitive advantage by utilizing high-quality human resources to increase productivity. Successful businesses have developed unique and appropriate human resource strategies based on internal strengths and constraints, allowing them to capitalize on external opportunities while avoiding hazards. Strategic planning and management are the most critical aspects in this setting (Schiemann, 2014). One of the essential functions of a company’s human resources department is to estimate future staffing requirements, which starts with personnel planning. Yahoo has set up new human resources and planning division. Strategic people management is a subset of broader business strategies that deal with employment plans, internal relationships, and resource allocation techniques.
Suggestions and recommendations based on the OBHR concepts for both organizations
Yahoo should aim to alter its organizational structure so that all employees have equal prospects for advancement. Yahoo must develop its work culture based on the competence of its personnel and the availability of necessary resources. Yahoo’s research and development team should be given a budget and other resources to help them develop new goods and services. Yahoo’s pay performance and talent management approach should be reviewed, and the company should endeavor to address employee concerns.
Because the competition is so fierce, Google should beef up its technical team to offer additional products and services. Although Google is one of the most known recruiters and workplaces, attracting bright people into the company must be constantly modified and innovated.
Doina, R., Mirela, S., & Constantin, R. (2002). The organizational culture and the factors of its formation. ANALELE UNIVERSITĂŢII DIN ORADEA, 561.
Drori, O. (2003). Display of search results in Google-based Yahoo! vs. LCC&K interfaces: A comparison study. Proc. Informing Science, 309-320.
Fielding, M. (2006). Effective communication in organisations. Juta and Company Ltd.
Pugh, D. S., Hickson, D. J., Hinings, C. R., & Turner, C. (1968). Dimensions of organization structure. Administrative science quarterly, 65-105.
Rothwell, J. D. (2010). In the company of others: An introduction to communication (p. 427). New York: Oxford University Press.
Sáenz-Royo, C., Gracia-Lázaro, C., & Moreno, Y. (2015). The role of the organization structure in the diffusion of innovations. PloS one, 10(5), e0126076.
Schiemann, W. A. (2014). From talent management to talent optimization. Journal of World Business, 49(2), 281-288.
Stone, M., Bentley, F., White, B., & Shebanek, M. (2016, May). Embedding user understanding in the corporate culture: Ux research and accessibility at yahoo. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 823-832).
Voz .S (2017) Why employee at Google and Apple are more Productive,
Ware, M. (2008). Peer review in scholarly journals: Perspective of the scholarly community-Results from an international study. Information Services & Use, 28(2), 109-112.