Unit 3: Organisations and Behaviour

Unit 3: Organisations and Behaviour
Assignment 1
LO1
Comparing and contrasting the diff erent organisational
structures and cultures of Apple and Google.
Structure is the arrangement and organisation of a business. It
will have a hierarchy with people of diff erent authority all
working together towards a certain goal, with a common set of
values and beliefs put in place. For an organisation to succeed
it must have a clear goal, with a soundly designed structure, to
ensure communication within the company is good. Drucker
(1989) said "good organisational structure does not by itself
produce good performance. But a poor organisational structure
makes good performance impossible".
The objective of structure is to co -ordinate diff erent parts of the
organisation. This is to allow management to monitor the
activities of the organisation, and resource utilisation, to
improve effi ciency. It is a framework of order and command
designed to link individuals in an established network. Having
structure provides authority, and makes people accountable for
their areas of work. By having a strong structure, a fl ow of work
and information is passed down via clear lines of co -operation,
this also allows for fl exibility, in order to respond to future
demands.
A structure of an organisation will diff er depending on its
nature, just like a building will diff er according to its use, e.g. a
house is built for a family to live, whereas an offi ce would be
built for work to be done. The table below explains what
infl uences a structure.
Infl uences
Purpose
Defi nition
If an
organisation
has a specifi c
purpose, the
structure of
that
organisation
will be altered
to ensure the
purpose is met,
with maximum
effi ciency.
Apple
Apple's purpose
is to bring the
best technology
to the world.
The centralised
structure,
where the CEO
checks
everything,
makes sure that
everything is
done perfectly.
Google
Google's
purpose is to
provide
information to
the world, and
rid it of evil. A
matrix structure
means that
Google has a
foothold in all
areas, this
makes it very

Assignment 1
Size
The size of an
organisation
will have an
eff ect on its
structure
because the
organisation
will have to
alter itself in
order to
accommodate
its needs.
Staff
An organisation
must look at
who their staff
is, and what
staff is needed.
Depending on
this a structure
will change
drastically
Legal,
Technical,
Social, and
Commercia
l
environme
nts
The external
aspects which
have a big
impact on
structure.
accessible and
helps it reach
all areas of the
world.
Apple is a
Google is an
global
enormous
organisation. Its organisation, as
structure was
a result of this
very simple,
they have a
where Steve
cross-structured
Jobs did
organisation.
everything, but Employees are
as it grew so
made
did Jobs' duties accountable for
and as a result
themselves, to
the structure
ease stress on
grew and duties managerial
were assigned
staff , who
to other people would have too
many people to
monitor.
Apple wants its
Google has very
staff to feel
creative staff .
appreciated,
As a result staff
and as part of
decide what
the company.
times they go
As a result
into work and
Steve Jobs
for how long
would go
they will work
around and
on certain days.
personally work
with staff ,
instead of
monitor their
progress.
Commercially
Google is
Apple has
socially seen as
strong
a website that
competitors.
can fi nd
Steve Jobs
everything. The
based the
matrix structure
structure of the means that all
company
parts of Google

Assignment 1
Age
Culture
and
manageme
nt
Geographic
al position
By looking at
the age of the
company it can
be realised
what the
company is
surviving on,
products or
reputation. It is
essential to
look at age to
make sure that
the hold on the
market is not
being lost
The culture of
an organisation
will alter the
way they want
to run. It will
aff ect their
management
style because
depending on
their outlook
they will do
things in a
certain way
Looking at
where an
organisation
bases
themselves has
a big eff ect on
the structure.
around himself
in order to
make sure that
everything was
done correctly
and to stay
ahead in the
market.
Founded in
1976 Apple
emerged at the
start of our
current
technological
revolution. It's
structure is
aff ected by its
age in that it
has a very
innovative
structure,
unseen by
anyone before.
Apple has a
culture where
Steve Jobs
(former CEO)
wanted to be
connected to
everyone, this
resulted in a
centralised
structure,
where Steve
Jobs managed
everything.
Apple have
based
themselves in
'silicone city',
in California.
This place is
seen as a
are connected,
this makes it
easier for
Google to
integrated its
diff erent areas,
and meet social
views.
Google is a very
young
company, and
as a result its
structure that
follows
Crainer's habits
(see appendix
6.).
Google has a
very openminded culture.
Management
structure has
been altered to
encourage this
by off ering
massages to
employees.
Google want to
be everywhere,
and as a result
has centres in
nearly all major
cities in the
world.

Assignment 1
Whether they
are centralised
or decentralised
will make the
structure vary a
lot
technological
hub and is the
ideal place for
Apple to situate
themselves.
When looking at the structure of a business there is a span of

control and a chain of command. Wide in shape, the "span of
control refers to the number of subordinates who report a single
supervisor or manager and for whose work that person is
responsible" (Andrzej A. Et Al, 2007). If the span of control is
too wide supervising subordinates eff ectively becomes very
diffi cult. It will also place more stress on the manager and
makes adapting to change much more diffi cult. However, if the
span of control is too narrow problems of co -ordination, and
consistency in decision-making may occur.
Vertical in shape, the chain of command is "The unbroken line
of authority that extends from the top of the organisation to the
bottom and clarifi es who reports to whom" (Andrzej A. Et Al,
2007). It provides the framework for superior-subordinate
relationships, but having too tall a structure will cause
communication problems between subordinates and their
superiors.
A combination of the span of control and the chain of command
will determine the overall pyramid shape of the organisation,
and whether the organisation is tall or fl at. A tall structure will
have a large number of levels of management, implying a
narrow span of control (see appendix). On the other hand, a fl at
structure will have a lower number of hierarchical levels,
implying a wide span of control (see appendix).
Flatter organisational structures will help save on managerial
costs, and improve communications between the higher ups and
employees as there are fewer levels between the top and
bottom of the hierarchical pyramid. Downsizing can result in
increased decentralisation as functions are performed closer to
the source.
There are problems however, with fl at organisational structures.
As there is a lower chain of command managers will assume
more responsibilities for a greater span of control, increasing

Assignment 1
workload. The eff ectiveness of the fl ow of communication
between top management and workforce is inhibited, and there
is reduced opportunity for promotion, or enhanced status.
Opportunities for the training of and development of future
managers is also reduced. A fl atter structure may also lead to
lower morale and distrust of management.
Outside the fl at and tall structures are the cross functional
matrix structures. A matrix structure is a structure where
diff erent functions and departments are linked with each other
(see appendix). Functional departments are used to provide the
stable base for specialised activities, these units are integrated
creating a project team made of each diff erent functional area.
The idea of authority based on status is replaced by infl uence
based on expertise.
The advantages behind using a matrix structure are that it
allows for a lot of fl exibility, and gives opportunity for staff
development. It also gives greater security to the organisation,
with a greater control of information. However, there is
likelihood of ambiguity within the organisations, as there is no
clear line of authority. Also, with such a complicated structure
responsibilities overlap, and issues with co- ordination can arise.
There is also increased chances of confl ict because of a break
down in communications.
Apple has a fl at, cross-sectional, matrix structure, however it is
designed where the CEO is at the centre of the organisation, not
at the top. The boss makes all the decisions and passes it on to
his inter-connected subordinates. Steve Jobs (former CEO) felt it
was important for Apple to feel like a family, where everyone
had their part and felt important. As a result, he made sure that
the structure was fl at, to ensure he was closely connected to
his subordinates, regardless of how far down the chain of
command they were.
Having such a structure was key to Apple's rise to dominance.
The slogan "think diff erent" was coined by Steve Jobs and
signifi ed exactly how he wanted his business run. Apple have
thrown conventional structures out the window and have made
their own structure, designed to suit their needs. The idea that
everything went through one person meant that there was no
chances of errors occurring, and no way for mistakes to be
made. Steve Jobs had an idea, and instead of just issuing

Assignment 1
commands and leaving people to their work, he would follow
through and ensure everything was done correctly. Time would
be saved with decision making, as delays for things like
consensus meetings would not occur, as the CEO had fi nal say.
The consequences however, of having a structure like this, is
that everything becomes limited. As all the projects go through
a single person, things become bottle necked. The number of
projects that can be undertaken at one time is reduced as it is
not possible for the CEO to approve many projects, as a result
Apple have only released one iPhone handset a year (till 2013),
unlike competitors who release several new handsets each year.
Another consequence of Apples structure is projects are very
time consuming. Despite limiting the number of projects to be
manageable, it still takes a lot of time to for them to be
completed. Everything had to be signed off by Steve Jobs,
meaning that the diff erent departments would have to wait until
he got round to their work, before they got the go ahead to
carry on. The biggest fl aw of Apple's structure is the reliance on
their CEO. Everything goes through one man, this means that
once he is gone their entire structure will fall apart. The proof
of this will likely show in the next few years. Apple is doing
fairly well without Steve Jobs, but their contingency plan is not
permanent and the backlash from his death will eventually hit
and have a very negative impact on the organisation.
Google has a non-traditional, hierarchical, cross-sectional,
matrix structure. The company has a pyramid like structure,
with managers and subordinates, but the way work is done is
very diff erent to normal hierarchies. The many diff erent
functional areas are interconnected, and where most hierarchies
have a chain of command, Google gives responsibility to its
managers, who in turn supervise and advise their subordinates.
The management works in a unique way, where instead of
setting goals for subordinates they will work alongside them,
helping them reach their self-set goals. Employees are able to
set their own goals, and managers act as supervisors, just to
ensure they meet these goals.
Google has become a global company because of the creative
minds they employ. Having a free-fl owing, fl exible structure is
key to this, as a rigid hierarchy would limit those who normally
think outside the box. Google's leaders want their employees to
have open discussions, and to contribute to the leadership of

Assignment 1
the business. As a result, almost every employee has access to
any managerial meeting. Google management realises the stake
that every employee has in the company, so in turn employees
feel responsibility for the outcome of projects. It is this way of
thinking that makes employees work so hard.
Google has a very soundly designed structure, except for one
big fl aw; Google has a high chance of crashing. Google entrusts
a lot of responsibilities to its employees, giving them free reign
with most projects. This may attract the best employees, and
make them work their hardest, but it does come with the risk of
things going wrong. Having employees stet their own goals may
mean that they set poor goals and could result in the company
going down. Another problem is Google's very complicated
matrix. Having a global company, where everything is
interlinked makes things very risky. If one area has problems, it
will have an eff ect on connected areas, and in Google; where
everything is connected, this could result in a domino eff ect
where the entire company falls down.
Google and Apple both have very strong and sound structures
but when compared Google has the advantage. The reason why
Google has a stronger structure is because it is more innovative
than Apple. Google is using all possible resources to improve
it's company and services, whereas Apple has been limiting
itself in order for Steve Jobs to check on everything. Although
one of Apples unique selling points is the way Steve Jobs ran
the company, that unique selling point is now gone. Apple's
structure was very strong, but at its core was Steve Jobs, and
with him gone that structural design is threatened. Google's
structure on the other hand is not reliant on a single person,
making it much more stable and adaptable, even if it did lose a
core member of its team, the eff ect on the structure would be
considerably less compared to Apple.
Culture is something that cannot be precisely defi ned. It is

commonly seen as the characteristics of a particular group of
people, and includes religion, language, cuisine, social habits,
music, and arts. Organisational culture is about etiquette in
business. It is seen as a code of behaviour that gives
expectations for social behaviour according to the conventional
social norms of that society, social class or group. Charles

Assignment 1
Handy (1985) defi ned culture as "the way we do things around
here".
Culture is intangible and ever changing. The aspects which
develop a culture include:
its history,
and the
beliefs of
its founder
The history of an organisation and the beliefs of

its founder are the two things which initially
product the culture. How it was established and
who it was established by makes the organisation
what it is, with Apple this culture is shown
through Steve Jobs.
The culture of Apple was formed on the rivalry
between Steve Jobs and Bill Gates. Steve Jobs
wanted to beat Bill Gates and become the best in
the world. This has created a culture in Apple
where everyone strives to make Apple number
one.
In Google the beliefs of the founders is that of
doing things simply and well, and without evil.
This has created a culture within Google, where
employees work their best to make things easy
for others. It has also created a culture where
employees have strong moral views.
the
Every leader has his own values and beliefs, this
leadership in turn creates a culture for him, which he will
and
imprint on his subordinates.
managemen Within Apple Steve Jobs had the strong belief that
t style
he should have a say in all projects. This in turn
made employees feel close to their boss, which
created a culture that everyone was a part of a
family.
With Google the management has a supervision
role, and employees make decisions. This makes
employees feel like they are contributing to the
company, and creates a culture where everyone
in Google feels important, and believes they are
helping a good cause.
the
characterist
ics of the
workforce
The characteristics of the workforce aff ect culture

as it changes the already established culture of
managers.
Within Apple part of the workforce is known as
geniuses. This workforce has then got their own

Assignment 1
culture which makes them seem superior to
others.
Google has a very multicultural, and diverse
workforce, as they have branches all over the
world. This creates a culture of tolerance for
other races and equality.
the
structure
The structure of a business will change the way

its culture will develop.
Apple has a centralised culture, which makes
everyone feel like they are close to the CEO, if it
was not that way they may feel the opposite and
as though they do not matter to the business.
In Google the structure is cross-sectional, this
makes a multi-cultural culture, where everyone is
equal and has the same importance, regardless of
role.
the external The external environment develops culture in that
environmen social views of the public heavily impact their
t
goals.
Apple are currently under fi re from people as
their employees in China have a very high suicide
rate, as a result Apple have built homes around
the factory to make life better for them.
With Google social media are slamming how the
mission statement of getting rid of evil is a joke
because Google search links to everything. As a
result of this Google, are reviewing reported sites
and banning them from their search engine.
The cultural web represents the taken-for-granted assumptions
of organisations. The paradigm (see appendix 7.) shows those
parts of an organisation that are forgotten about.
The routine of an organisation, and how things are done and
their rituals are a big part of their culture. Apple had a routine
where by Steve Jobs would go around to diff erent areas of the
business and check how things were. In Google a ritual is that
when a new employee starts they get a massage, a ritual which
would look very pleasing to prospective employees.
The stories told by an organisation and its employees is
embedded into its history and creates a culture. Apple have

Assignment 1
highly praised Steve Jobs, and after his death he was seen as a
hero, but what Apple does not highlight is the fact that the
Board of Directors voted Steve Jobs out of the company. In
Google there are many stories about hidden codes and founded
speculations that when searching certain phrases 'easter eggs'
are found, this makes Google seem like a fun place.
Symbols are short-handed ways of showing off the organisation.
Apple is all about knowledge and technology, and their logo
signifi es taking a bite out of the fruit of knowledge. Google's
name is such a big symbol that people incorporate it into their
own vocabulary, i.e. she googled a restaurant.
Power structures are able to infl uence key assumptions. Steve
Jobs is seen as a 'father' of technology, and so Apple is seen as
a powerful organization. Google is the number one search
engine in the world, and so people associate a job in Google as
one of power and authority.
Organisational structure refl ects power and shows the
importance if roles and relationships. Apple emphasizes that no
matter how high or low you are on the food chain, you are
important. Google emphasises that skill makes you important,
no matter where you are from or what position you are in. Both
companies discard regular organisational structure values.
Control systems measure and monitor what is important in the
organisation. Apple lets their employees be creative and
constantly discuss new ideas and changes. Google leave
employees to make decisions regarding the organisation, and
only monitor them to ensure things are being done well.
There are four types of organisational culture according to
Handy:
Power
culture
Role
culture
Task
culture
A single power source, which may be an individual or

a conglomerate. This is the closest to Apple's culture,
where Steve Jobs was the driving point behind Apple's
success.
Highly formalised and bound with regulations and
paperwork, relations are dominated by hierarchy and
authority.
Preserve a strong sense of the basic mission of the
organisation. Teamwork is the basis on which jobs are
designed. This is the closest to Google's culture, who

Assignment 1
Person
culture
has employees who all work together in their matrix

structure.
Where the individual is the central point and believe
themselves to be superior to the organisation.
Organisational culture is important because it promotes the

most important aspects an organisation needs, i.e. healthy
competition and unifying employees. If an organisation did not
have a culture it would not have what makes it what it is. If
Apple did not have its culture Steve Jobs would have never put
so much time and money into his company and Apple would
have been forgotten about. If Google did not have its culture
they would never have expanded across the globe and have
become a multi-million pound phenomenon.
Apple's leadership style is very defensive. Instead of coming up

with brand new ideas they released new and improved products.
Apple's leaders felt they were secure in their customer base
and as a result, did not branch out a lot.
Google have a very aggressive leadership style. They went from
just a search engine to making phones, their own web browser
and laptops and even mapped the world. By using this very
aggressive approach Google have become leaders in multiple
areas.
When compared Google's aggressive approach is much better
than Apple's repetitive stagnant approach. Apple has had a
large part of their market share taken by Google, because they
did not expand their market, or innovate themselves. While
Apple built up their walls by keeping to the same simple
formula, Google fl ooded into their market washing away a large
portion of profi t and sales.
There are four approaches to management:
Classical
Weber's
bureaucracy
approach
bases the
organisation in
Human
relations
Elton Mayo
developed this
approach
where people
are no longer
Systems
Contingency
A
reconciliation
of classical
and human, it
has the best of
The
contingency
rejects the
idea that one
approach is

Assignment 1
terms of
purpose,
formal
structure,
rationality and
logic,
technical
requirements.
It does not
care about
human
relations.
seen as
machines, and
are put fi rst.
However, little
eff ort is put
into the
organisation.
both worlds.
Considers the
needs of both
the
organisation
and its
employees.
the best, and

changes
management
approaches
according to
the goal.
Apple has adopted a systems approach. They have a good

management process which meets the needs of the organisation
and looks after its employees. However, this approach is not
innovative enough to keep strong in the current market, as they
did not have a contingency plan for new competition
Google follows a management approach more similar to the
contingency approach. They are constantly changing and
adapting, and moving into new markets. It is this approach that
has allowed them to encroach on Apple's market and steal a
large chunk of their customers. Instead of just staying safe they
found a niche in Apple's market and changed their goals in
order to take on the technological giants.
The results show that whilst Google have a much smaller
market share compared to Apple, they have expanded, while
Apple has lost ground. This proves that Google has a better
organisation than Apple.
Reference
Drucker, P. F. (1989), The Practice of Management , Heinemann
Professional.
Charles Handy (1993), Understanding organizational behaviour ,
New York: Oxford University Press, Inc.
Andrzej A. and David A. (2007), Organizational Behaviour , 6th
ed. Essex: Prentice Hall. 452, glossary.
Bibliography

Assignment 1
Crainer, S. (1998) Key Management Ideas: Thinkers that
Changed the Management World, Third Edition, Financial Times,
Prentice Hall.
Jay Yarow (2013), Apple's New Organizational Structure Could
Help It Move Faster, Available:
<http://www.businessinsider.com/apples-new- organizationalstructure-could-help-it-move-faster-2013-5> Last accessed 12th
November 2013.
Google (2013), Our Culture, Available:
<http://www.google.com/about/company/facts/culture/> Last
accessed 8th October 2013.
Google (2013), Ten things that we know to be true, Available:
<http://www.google.co.uk/about/company/philosophy/> Last
accessed 14th November 2013.
CWMIFG (2012), What is the cultural web?, Available:
<http://www.innovationforgrowth.co.uk/Blog/?p=631> Last
George Boak (2007), Organisational Behaviours, Available:
<http://www.yorksj.ac.uk/pdf/Organisational%20cultures
%20workbook.pdf> Last accessed 15th November 2013.
Mike Myatt (2013), Leadership Lesson: The Diff erence Between
Google and Apple, Available:
<http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikemyatt/2013/05/16/leadershiplesson-the-diff erence-between-google-and-apple/> Last
Appendix
1. Example of a tall structure:
Principal
Deputy
Principal
Assistant
Head
Teacher
Faculty
Head
Teacher
Teacher

Assignment 1
2. Example of a fl at structure:
Managing
Director
Area
Manager
Staff
Area
Manager
Area
Manager
Staff
Staff
Staff
Staff
3. Example of a matrix structure:

Sales
Finance
Marketing
Research
Production
4. Apple's spoke and wheel structure:
Staff

Assignment 1
5. Google's non-traditional cross sectional structure:
6. Crainer's seven habits of new organisations:

Crainer (1998)

Assignment 1
1. Flexible and free-fl owing
2. Non-hierarchical
3. Based on participation
4. Creative and
entrepreneurial
5. Based around networks
6. Driven by corporate goals
7. Utilise technology as a
key resource
7. The Paradigm:
This has resulted in an

increased use of group/team
approaches, there is also a
growth in fl exible employment,
increasing the use of subcontracting. Participation and
empowerment is also
emphasised, with many
workers getting involved in
decision-making. As a
consequence of these seven
habits there has been a great
change in the traditional bossemployee relationship.

Unit 3: Organisations and Behaviour

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Unit 3: Organisations and Behaviour

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Unit 3: Organisations and Behaviour