GOOGLAY
Founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin turned a million dollar angel investment into a global software company, Google, in 1998. Ever since, the company has been growing tremendously. Initially, small number of Google management held responsibility of reporting all activities directly to the top management. However, the management is faced with the question whether Google’s current organizational structure is fit for continuously expanding organization. Page, Brin, and Eric Schmidt established a culture where innovation and continuous improvements are encouraged. Nevertheless, with the increase in number of employees and projects, it became impossible for three founders to deal with the entire operations of Google. In response, Google placed senior managers in chain of command to deal with the departmental reports and operations. However, as Google’s size grew even bigger, Google is faced once again with the question whether they have to change their structure again. In doing so, we are to scrutinize, and find pros and cons of each organizational system. Google’s new model of functional organization is proving to have a very resource efficient structure. It was initially adopted by Google due to its compatibility with small number of employees in a narrow market. It allowed Google’s small number of employees at the time to focus narrowly on a subject at hand since Google was initially taking on small number of projects. Based on this demand, functional organization was deemed best fit for the company. Yet, even with Google’s apparent encouragement for corporate entrepreneurial culture, its outdated organizational structure showed its limit to become an efficient model for cooperation and networking organization that Google’s founders desired. In this sense, functional organization worked for Google’s earlier employee body, but consequently, as Google took on more projects simultaneously with greater scales, having only a small number of people arranged