Motivation is any factor, fact, emotion, state or need which persuade a person to participate in an activity. While an employee(s)’ output in an organization is influenced by many factors such as perception, individuality, and culture, motivation contributes to a higher percentage. After the departure of Eric Schmidt in 2011, the new CEO Larry Page had to initiate new changes that would demolish the bureaucracy that was non-motivating to the employees and unhealthy to the company itself. By reviewing some of the past states of affairs and by the use of Marlow‘s hierarchy, McClelland, Hertzberg theories and Aldefer’s model, this report will critically analyze motivation issues in Google company.

In his article, Mark Crowley (2013) highlights some of the deficiencies in motivation issues in Google. Although he acknowledges that Google has a high profound positive effect on its employees, he unveils what is still unknown to many. Since its establishment in 1988, Google Company has grown from a duo managed company to incorporate almost 37000 employees throughout the globe (Crowley 2013). As a consequence, there was a crucial need to successfully manage and integrate the new employees to meet the predetermined standards. It maintained at attaining a competitive edge in the market while at the same time upholding its employee’s happiness and productivity. Nevertheless, with this approach, few factors that had happened under former management rendered this aspect unappealing and seem rather controlling.

Abraham’s Maslow’s theory identifies five basic needs that consist of self-actualization, psychological welfare, social, esteem, and safety, as issues that employers need to note as motivation factors of their employees. In ERG (existence, relatedness, and growth) theory, Clayton Alderfer points out that although employees needs many not be as hierarchical as in Maslow’s, there is a need for employers to recognize their importance (Ball 2012). Google believed in hiring extraordinary employees and would take the time to filter and identify the smartest applicant. Most interviews, therefore, viewed their method of recruitment as a form of brain teasing, a move that most potential employees saw as unnecessary and apathetic as the questions were not based on one’s experience. However, with a new administration, this issue was addressed.

While a good pay maybe considered as a prime motivator, employees feel a heightened value of importance when their efforts are acknowledged (Stewart 2013). In the early days, Google devoted the same leadership capability that it used in the development of self-driving cars in optimizing human output in the places of work. Though most traditional leadership theories direct employers to pay little and get more from employees, Google held a genuine reverence towards its employees. While Google was seeking a sustainable success by setting a high profile for happy employees, it abandoned the logic of attaining competitive advantage.  The underneath explanation was that satisfied employees are the basis of excellent performance. However after a thorough consideration of the reason for investing in the employees, Google leaders decided to come up with a team of individuals whose primary focus was to quantify the impact of all the benefits and perks that were extended to Google’s staff. 

A hygiene-motivation theory put forward by Fredrick Herzberg suggests that motivating factors such as achievement, advancement, and responsibility are the leading causes of motivation in workplaces.  He further identified non-conducive working environment, poor administration, strict interpersonal and supervision relationships, low salaries and lack of security as factors that amplify lack of motivation among employees (Ball 2012). According to a discovery by a conference board, the only reason behind the unhappiness and disengagement in jobs among U.S employees was because most organizations have poorly designed work, characterized by the lack of diversity (Crowley 2013). But that was not the case with Google as it recognized that routine and repetitive job lowers employees’ motivation. Google gave employees opportunity to dedicate 20% of their time to do work of their choice. However, one engineer Chade-Meng Tan differed with this idea and in his book “Course on Mindfulness,” he proposed that motivation should be intrinsic and if an employee loves his or her work, then the results would tell. Google tend to borrow from the idea and made amendments.

Google employees had unique freedom and control of the resources, time included. As deduced by Michael Marmot on the health of workers in Great Britain, giving employees control on performance output led to improved production hence a source of motivation (Stewart 2013). However, in the knowledge that some employees may take advantage of this freedom, Google came up with a criterion to hire ambitious individuals with an established track of outstanding performance. David McClelland classifies employees’ motivation needs as power, achievement or affiliation. A thorough analysis of the theory points out that certain needs of an employee are acquired with time and that most of these needs are influenced by an individual’s life experiences. The theory further points that availing at least three of the right resources such as time, skills; supervision support, raw materials and management support will impact a positive motivation on employees (Ball 2012). Empowerment is one way of motivating employees throughout their working hours. One of the founding goals of Google was to accomplish unique ambitions and it is inspiring that most of the employees find this objective motivating. However, work alone is not a determinant of a sustained employee commitment and motivation, and upon this discovery, Google leaders resorted to giving employees authentic influence to run the organization. 

As from analysis of above issues, this report concluded that efficient administration and management plays a key role in motivating staff. In most organizations, employees are expected to perform to their best capability. The best results are achieved when there is an aspect of motivation. As exhibited in Google, when staff is motivated, the profit level increases. Google has a unique, if not an established organizational culture, and most of its success can be attributed to this factor. However, the organization had to face both employee and management difficulties on its course to achieve the present outstanding profile.

References

Ball, B., 2012. A summary of motivation theories. Jurnal Psikologi, Maret, pp.1-26.

Crowley, C. (2013) ‘Not A Happy Accident: How Google Deliberately Designs Workplace Satisfaction’, Fast Company, 21^st march. Available at https://www.fastcompany.com/3007268/not-happy-accident-how-google-deliberately-designs-workplace-satisfaction

Stewart , B. (2013) ‘Looking for a Lesson in Google’s Perks’,The New York Times, 15^th March. Available at http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/16/business/at-google-a-place-to-work-and-play.html