The organizational culture and human resources of two significant corporations were examined for this paper. This paper contrasts the examination of Google’s success stories and Nokia’s failures, as well as examines both company’s organizational structures and cultures. Additionally, it pinpoints the two companies’ engagement and communication techniques in the next section of this study. The management and leadership philosophies of Google and Nokia are identified, and the influence of organizational culture, structure, and managerial style on a company is examined (Barão et al., 2019). The report’s last section may find a study of the strategic plans used by both organizations’ human resources. The researcher has concluded this paper with a few recommendations based on an examination of the Google and Nokia stories.
Organizational Structure and Culture for the Companies Analysis
The organizational structure of Google LLC is an arrangement of numerous resources and elements of the company’s overall design. Google’s organizational structure deviates from the norm since it strongly emphasizes flatness. Additionally, it highlights internal connections inside the company and is adaptable to new developments (Guo et al., 2019). Google’s organizational structure is cross-functional. Along with other crucial areas of concern, it emphasizes employee satisfaction. Theories contend that creativity and success result from a strong connection between Google’s organizational structure and corporate culture.
Because of its horizontal character and degree of flexibility, Nokia’s organizational structure is well known. A fast communication line connects its departments. When Nokia’s cell phones connect with the web, the company’s service division is in charge of developing and designing online services to improve user experiences (Lamberg et al., 2021). The Nokia corporate development team searches for prospects for future expansion and oversees the strategies that will be implemented. The NAVTEQ department is regarded as a source of digital data navigation and navigational maps for it (Lamberg et al., 2021). Due to its capabilities, such as downloaded maps that improve the user experience, this component is regarded as essential. The company’s board typically makes strategic and vital decisions of directors.
Mode of Communication of the Companies
As researchers, the Google founders initially supported free thought as a necessary component of creativity. The way they organize themselves and how their staff communicates are both impacted by this factor. In its workplaces, leadership optimism is the norm. Google employees are urged to work together. Due to excellent collaboration with coworkers, their program called Googler to Googler makes them busy and fosters various abilities (Lamberg et al., 2021). Such programmers advocate for different skills, including administration, orientation, public speaking, and extracurricular activities. Google thinks creating a community that supports a positive culture is crucial. For employees to socialize and take breaks, they provide breakout areas.
On the other side, Nokia’s management hardly encourages employee communication programs. They encourage staff members to use social networks hoping that internal product usage will produce the best-selling approaches. Nokia does a poor job of promoting employee ideas and inter-worker collaboration. The company’s social cast encourages employees to post personal stories on social media to give customers a taste of what goes on in Nokia’s workspaces.
Mode of Employee Interaction
The corporate culture of Google encourages creativity. As a result, it gives its staff members a platform to promote creativity and openness. Facilities that support innovation are all around Google. Some of how Google employees interact include water-cooler conversations, calls, one-on-one interactions, and team meetings (Lamberg et al., 2021). Additionally, active listening forms a critical component of employee interaction, especially for the managers who are required to show equality in handling employee cases. Google allows room for mistakes to be made by its employees. Each worker creates a unique project that will enable them to spend 20% of their time on complex tasks (Lamberg et al., 2021). As a result, they are free to recognize their potential and pursue it without worrying about losing their jobs.
Contrary to Google, Nokia’s employees interact in two main ways, by using the company’s BlogHub and incentive-giving events. Nokia has an established BlogHub that lets employees send videos and photos and share posts with their colleagues while at work. Additionally, this technology allows them to exchange information at the grassroots level (Lamberg et al., 2021). Along with BlogHub, Nokia’s employees interact in events aimed at giving gifts and incentives to the best-performing employees.
Identifying Management and Leadership Styles
Google practices laissez-faire management in the hope that it will foster creativity in its employees. Employees working in this approach are not given any direction while the product is being created or produced. Employees may then concentrate on being creative and become more enthusiastic about their profession, improving their work’s caliber. Google encourages a democratic leadership approach (Lamberg et al., 2021). This concept is based on the hypothesis that two heads are better than one. They think everyone should have the chance to speak and impart their actual knowledge (Sulphey, 2019). They encourage staff involvement in conferences and decision-making. Google supports a forward-thinking management team that prioritizes innovation and creativity. The management and leadership staff at Google frequently demonstrate empathy for the employees, which helps keep them and grow their commitment to the business.
On the other hand, Nokia’s management team strongly emphasizes creating, sustaining, and advancing a positive organizational culture within its company. The HR team has implemented several policies that help the workforce grow, use, and establish their abilities. They encourage exceptional and creative teamwork (Doz & Wilson, 2019). Nokia practices departmental leadership and management. With this strategy, their work is divided across teams and individuals, providing them responsibility and tasks to perform (Simonen et al., 2020). Each supervisor or department head is in charge of particular jobs under their purview. A company’s success can be determined by its management style.
Effects of Organizational Culture, Structure, and Management Style on Organization
The success or failure of a firm is significantly influenced by organizational culture, design, and management methods. Lower productivity, poor work quality, decreased organization profitability, and other issues might result from a disengaged management team. The management team and organizational structure of Google encourage innovation and provide fair opportunities for staff members to present their ideas to the group. To get the most performance out of their staff and give them comfort and confidence, they create various programs. Employee satisfaction is constantly kept in the back of the management team’s mind as they work to advance the company (Simonen et al., 2020). No matter their position at work, Google encourages a democratic leadership style in which everyone has a voice (Lebleu et al., 2020). Google promotes a pacesetting kind of leadership to set an alarming pace and inspire its staff to perform better. On occasion, this hurts the workers. Sometimes pushing someone to improve every day wears them out and burns them out.
Conversely, Nokia gradually lost its creativity and flexibility. One of the factors contributing to its success in its early years was its desire to digitize and promote new technology. However, as time passed, Nokia’s leadership style was unable to improve, and the company lost its innovative spirit (Berg et al., 2019). According to experts, Nokia’s organizational dysfunction, poor management choices, an increase in internal bureaucracy, and internal conflicts were among the causes of its demise.
Strategic HR Plan Analysis
The only corporation with an information HR function is Google. The foundation of Google’s whole HR strategy is the hiring and hard work of the most brilliant individuals. Additionally, Google has a creative hiring method and approach (Alanzi, 2021). They have a unified hiring staff of experts who work to find the best skills on the market. Candidates must pass a challenging screening process. They evaluate applicants primarily on their creative skills and capacity to function in a flat organizational structure rather than hiring those with higher SAT scores. They provide so-called Googleyness smaller teams.
However, Nokia exclusively employs people with the particular abilities, dispositions, and expertise they demand. This restricts their hunt for innovation and leads to a workforce composed mostly of people with similar skill sets. One of the factors contributing to Nokia’s current downfall is such requirements-related mistakes (Piasecki et al., 2018). Nokia does not allow for innovation in the quest for the necessary skill sets. Because there is little diversity of thought, the organization becomes less creative and ultimately fails.
Conclusion and Recommendation
Inconclusively, Google has succeeded, whereas Nokia has struggled throughout the years. The organization’s management, architectural styles, and employment practices are the fundamental causes of these variances. Nokia’s work culture lacked innovation and variety while Google actively sought out ideas, while Nokia exclusively hired those who possessed a small set of required abilities. The following recommendations and ideas are applicable to maintain the management and human resource teams better.
- Foster teamwork within the organization as it encourages innovativeness and creativity.
- To keep employees motivated, an organization must provide performance reviews.
- Regular performance reviews also assist management in better grasping the nature of the workplace.
- Focus on growth and education of employees to ensure the change transitions are done seamlessly.
- Integrate modernized technology to facilitate the company’s effectiveness and efficiency.
Alanzi, T. (2021). A review of mobile applications available in the app and google play stores used during the COVID-19 outbreak. Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare, 14, 45.
Barão, A., de Vasconcelos, J. B., Rocha, Á., & Pereira, R. (2019). A knowledge management approach to capture organizational learning networks. International Journal of Information Management, 37(6), 735-740.
Berg, F., Koelbel, J. F., & Rigobon, R. (2019). Aggregate confusion: The divergence of ESG ratings. MIT Sloan School of Management.
Doz, Y., & Wilson, K. (2019). Ringtone: Exploring the rise and fall of Nokia in mobile phones.
Guo, D., Chen, H., Long, R., Lu, H., & Long, Q. (2019). A co-word analysis of organizational constraints for maintaining sustainability. Sustainability, 9(10), 1928.
Lamberg, J. A., Lubinaitė, S., Ojala, J., & Tikkanen, H. (2021). The curse of agility: The Nokia Corporation and the loss of market dominance in mobile phones, 2003–2013. Business History, 63(4), 574-605.
Lebleu, J., Detrembleur, C., Guebels, C., Hamblenne, P., & Valet, M. (2020). Concurrent validity of Nokia Go activity tracker in walking and free‐living conditions. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 26(1), 223-228. Oxford University Press.
Piasecki, J., Waligora, M., & Dranseika, V. (2018). Google search as an additional source in systematic reviews. Science and engineering ethics, 24(2), 809-810.
Simonen, J., Herala, J., & Svento, R. (2020). Creative destruction and creative resilience: Restructuring the Nokia-dominated high‐tech sector in the Oulu region. Regional Science Policy & Practice, 12(5), 931-953.
Sulphey, M. M. (2019). Could the adoption of organizational ambidexterity have changed the history of Nokia? South Asian Journal of Business and Management Cases, 8(2), 167-181.