Table of Contents
Introduction
Just as expected from all unique global brands, Google is daring, creative, and by multiple accounts an enviable place to work. One of the most pronounced qualities that has marked it enviable is its support for employee’s development such that they can spend 20 percent of their time on anything they want and keeping their employees happy is also a value they take to heart. Google created a unique work environment that attracts, motivates, and retains the best players in the field. And in 2007 and 2014, Google was ranked as the number 1 “Best Place to Work For” by Fortune magazine respectively (Adams, n.d.).
Google’s actions have in a way placed itself as a model to several other organizations. With great leaders like Larry Page, Sergey Brin, Schmidt, Rosenberg, Alan Eagle, Google has transformed over the decade with great values and excellent managerial concepts. The former leaders – Schmidt, Rosenberg, Alan Eagle have decided to extract and share several insights they have developed over the years in google especially in setting strategies and hiring, motivating, and directing employees.
A high heard principle is “don’t let people work from home,” with the idea that employees must be engaged to do the work and deliver results with flexibility, but not remotely and must not be over worked. In their own opinion, “it’s not a key component of a manager’s job to ensure that employees consistently have a traditional 40-hour workweek” (Google Execs Have Ideas on How to Run Your Business, n.d.).
127 our experts are availableright now
The trio attributed this to most managers still thinking ‘inputs’ in the old 20th-century manufacturing processes rather than waking up to the realities of information, global influence, and computing power dispensation. Nevertheless, they believe that there are cases where extra time is needed to meet deadline, hence, making this traditional expectation not totally old-fashioned.
The leaders feel that Google employees prefer the idea of using 20% of their time to work on anything they want as an opportunity, claiming that according to Marissa Mayer, that “resentment comes from being told what to do and when to do it.” “I think you really want to give people the flexibility to manage their own time relative to their own work deadlines and strike their own dynamic in terms of how to be spending their time.” They added (Google Execs Have Ideas on How to Run Your Business, n.d.).
Clearly, they are endorsing the practicability of the philosophy and encouraging managers across several businesses to implement this management strategy with almost 100 – percent chance at success. And of course, project management is indeed a key area to test the waters.
Applying this well-known Google’s successful formula in a project, giving necessary factors and teamwork can lead to success in projects. But in a situation where a project manager (PM) gives away absence of a structured decision-making process while applying this strategy, may limit chances at success, thereby jeopardizing the delivery on cost, on time and on the quality of the project.
More so, assuming a situation where PMs will follow to project specifics, but leaving workers to manage their own roles at their own time without defined strategy – detailed instructions, effective decision making, and effective monitoring will lead to increasing project cost, lagging time and poor quality as a result of disjointed and ungraceful chains of activities. For example, when the 20 percent time was created by Google Founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin in 2004.
It’s designed to give employees one full day per week (20 percent of their time) to work on a Google-related passion project of their own choosing or creation (Adams, n.d.). The defined goal was to add creativity to the company but there was a strategy. And was it counterproductive, no, but that is the strategy that created AdSense, Gmail, Google Maps, Google News, Google Talk, etc., (Adams, n.d.). Why? Because of the presence of structured decision-making that was aligned to company strategy and culture. Google’s culture is reflected in their decision making as well (Lohr, 2005).
Decisions at Google are made in teams (Lohr, 2005). In other words, this is not a company where decisions are made by the senior person in charge and then implemented top down. It is common for several small teams to attack each problem and for employees to try to influence each other using rational persuasion and data. When projects are implemented in this manner, the possibility of erring which can impact cost, quality and time is significantly avoided because every team member feels they have a stake in the project and that they would be held accountable perhaps anything goals sour.
Consequently, addressing the issues of working remotely as against Google’s view on not letting people work from home, I don’t think that a project team should see this approach as a lack of trust. First, I believe that every project is unique and the PM must ensure companies strategies are in picture such as to determine what approach is best – remote working or traditional? If the projects that get funded, approved and resourced in an organization are not tied directly to the organization’s strategy, where is it going? Nowhere obviously.
Traditionally, project management has focused on tactical measures, measuring effective execution (Russell, 2007). However, a good project team are expected not to reflect only tactical excellence, but also strategic importance. In this way, working remotely should not be seen as an issue, rather focus should be on effective management and on achieving project objectives.
Teams must see project objectives and organizational strategy as key tools in determining working station – physical presence or remotely (Russell, 2007). These best suites productivity and not breed mistrust or lack of it. If strategy demand remote access to complete jobs, PMs should approve rather than incur more costs on transportation, feeding and other logistics for the said worker if they were meant to appear physically.
For instance, if you a PM is used to managing busy teams in a distracting office setting, managing remote projects will feel like a breath of fresh air. More so, your team will likely be working when they are most productive and with fewer distractions (Nevogt, 2019). And you may notice your team accomplishing more because they have the flexibility and freedom to organize tasks and work productively.
However, the only valid concerns may sprout from undefined objectives and firm strategies, and employee’s misapplication of company’s time and neglect of their responsibilities. Often, we have seen instances where remote workers miss online meetings, deadlines or dodge communicating (picking calls, replying emails, etc.) with PMs to update on the progress of their tasks.
To avoid inattention to project responsibilities, working remotely should be allowed as the need arises and critically monitored and controlled by PMs, that’s the only way unintended concerns such as mistrust won’t fuel the process. The controls should involve (Billows, 2019; Nevogt, 2019 and Kappel, 2018):
- Provide working tools such work platforms and communication tools that can function between team members, working from home, in different offices, or another country.
- Outlining clear processes for each role and project
- Ensuring deadlines are set in advance and agreed upon
- Take critical strategic decisions for project success.
- Finding a project management approach that empowers your team to get more done
Conclusion
I think the principles that Google is trying to promote here benefit all of us by solving better problems especially in project management, bringing better people into the industry, improving our teams, improving the quality of management, improving the aspirations, and just making the world a better place.
