The Management of Internal Business Environment

The internal organizational environment is comprised of all the features within the organization. This includes the current employees and the management of the corporate culture; which defines how the employees behave. Although it is believed that some organizational features or elements affect only the organization, other factors affect just the manager. Notably, the philosophical or leadership style held by the manager at times affects the employees (Klubeck, Langthorne and Padgett 2010, p. 45). Progressive managers empower the employees to make their own decision while the traditional managers give explicit commands to the employees.

Moreover, different organizations have had to change to keep up with the lightning-fast changes that are continually happening in various industries. Technological advancement, changing customer demands, mergers as well as new product line are some of the things that are experiencing quick change (Sasi Kumar, Vimal and Manikandan 2014, p. 54). This paper will review some of the essential features within the management of the internal business environment. It will look at leadership, motivation, social organization and power or politics and how these features are proving useful to the survival and success of technological firms. Secondly, it will analyze different organizational theories and similarly examine some of the standard practices within these organizations, and lastly, the paper will provide recommendations in managing the contemporary business.

1. Motivation

According to scholars, motivation describes some of how a manager provides or promotes productivity in their employees (Panicker 2018, p. 150). Frequently people confuse the fact of ‘happy’ employees with motivated employees. Although it may be related, motivation essentially explains the desire employees feel towards the performance of a task regardless of the level of happiness. Notably, employees that are fully motivated tend to perform more productively; they are more engaged as well as feel more invested in their work. For effective employee motivation, a manager will need creativity to understand the areas where employees’ performance exceeds the expectations of the company (Cerrone and Manna 2018, p. 18). Motivation may also include the areas that need improvement before they grow into problems. These strategies all convey a message that human investment is essential. Giving employees regular feedback, observing an employees’ performance during an evaluation, promoting employees, and asking for employee opinions are some of the ways of motivating employees in an organization. Notably, when it comes to the matters of employee motivation, Google stands out from the rest. In the year 2014, Google was named as one of the best company to work for. Google has managed to absorb huge and bright minds in its workforce in the 20 years it has been in operation. That is over 50,000 employees spread in different places around the world and serving millions of customers every day (Rugulies 2018, p. 45).

Nevertheless, the typical thing is how Google heavily pampers its employees while still being able to extract unique and outstanding ideas from them. The leadership and motivational model within Google topples the traditional motivational theory that focuses more on results than on employees who attract those results. Google’s work culture is true to its philosophy. Like any other company in the United States, Google offers standard employee benefits such as no-cost health, flex spending accounts, insurance, vacation packages and so on (Steyaert, 2011, p. 79). However, Google is understood for its more than just attractive and distinctive perks and benefits which serves as or shows the very extent a company will go to keep its employees motivated. Google offers reimbursement of up to 5000 dollars for legal expenses, 100% pay on maternal leaves and a maximum of 18 weeks off, financial support for baby adoption which is under Google Adoption Assistance, and lastly onsite solons, carwash, gyms and so on at the company’s headquarters in Mountain View (Soules 2013, p. 20). When employees are treated in such like manner, it helps them be more successful.              

2. Leadership

            Organizational leadership is the second absorbed management approach which works towards what is necessary and best for an individual as well as what is best for a group as a whole instantaneously (Sofo 2013, p. 26). It is likewise a work ethic and an attitude that empowers a person in any given role to lead from the top, bottom or middle of an organization. There are five critical components of organizational leadership; this includes worldview which includes understanding personal worldview as well as the worldviews according to other employees. According to scholars, worldview is images of how different people view the world around them. Worldview is never the same just as identity, political stands, and religious viewpoints; however it does include these points (Pamphilus 2015, p. 2-3). The second key component of organizational leadership is strengths. Notably, successful leaders need to capitalize on strength as well as need to work around weakness. According to scholars, strength is the consistency and near perfection performance in any given activity.

To develop strength in any activity one requires specific talents, although it is believed that a person can acquire the relevant knowledge or skill (Collins, Galvin and Meyer 2018, p. 78). In Facebook’s initial days the current CEO Mark Zuckerberg was not quite a good leader. He did not communicate well, and he often irritated his employees. Likewise, he had an attitude. For instance, there was a business card that he would give to friends and employees that specified ate the top: “I am the CEO, Bitch.” At the end of 2005, the thing started getting particularly worse for Facebook the Employees became demoralized; which was harming the company After Zuckerberg decided to get CEO lessons things changed from that point on. Over the past few years of Facebook’s life, Zuckerberg has had a lot of critics as well as supporters (Lincoln and Robards 2014, p. 1047-1050). However, the fascinating thing is how he manages the social media giant. Leaders ought to have similar characteristics that drive organizations. First, a leader has to be passionate. According to scholars, passion has the capability of turning an entrepreneur into a successful business leader (Cova and Guercini 2016, p. 15). The second characteristic is that a leader has to have a sense of purpose.  Today’s great companies have a great sense of purpose ingrained in everything they do be it in attracting the right investors, employing new employees and doing their marketing. The sense of purpose breeds a sense of belonging and therefore sparks strong employee and customer loyalty. Facebook is not just a typical social media site; it is a form of staying in touch with people, a place that brings people together as well as builds communities.

The third characteristic is that a leader must value its people. Notably, most innovative organizations allow their employees to have the freedom to develop as well as take risks. Facebook allows their employees to work on projects they feel comfortable working on vs. the projects assigned to them by the company. This culture encourages freedom of speech and action, as well as the courage of conviction which comes from strong leadership style leading by example.

3. Social organization

            According to scholars, social organization is a way or a pattern of relationship within organizations or among individuals and groups (Hjorland 2013, p. 181). Notably, some of the features of in social organization include spatiotemporal cohesion, sexual composition, leadership, structure, communication systems division of labor and so on. These features of social organization allow people to monitor their daily work and likewise involve in other activities which are controlled forms of human interactions. The human social interaction comprises of common characteristics within social units such as clubs, enterprises, and family. An organization is comprised of people and how well an organization works depend on how well its people interact with each other. This makes every organization a social field. Notably, organizations work top down through different social structured in the organization hierarchy — top-down work end to end structured around the business processes. The two dimensions these are process and hierarchy shape how the organization views the world, its challenges, and the way in which it will solve the potential difficulties. Scholars agree that there is nothing wrong with hierarchy or process they are valid approaches to managing complex operation (Francescato and Aber 2015, p. 738). However, there remains a critical third dimension to organizational efficiency. This is observed when individuals get things done through working in so-called ‘white spaces’ in a particular organizational structure or through working across the ‘seams’ of a commercial process.

Moreover, in the way of working as well as connecting they accomplish more than what they are asked to do top-down and more than what defines their job description. This is referred to as the social dimension. The social, organizational structure within Alphabet Inc. is divisional. Each division is separated or positioned a separated entity and brand, for instance, Calico, Google, Nest and so on. Notably, each division within Alphabet has a flat organizational structure which provides this organization with a range of benefits, For instance, removal of bureaucracy; which develops a high level of flexibility as well as creates effective two-way communication between senior management and other employees.

            This social, organizational structure is one of the critical factors that have contributed to the success of Google in the information technology business. Notably, a company’s social, organizational structure refers to the composition and arrangement of different business components especially regarding processes and resources. In this case, Google’s social structure is structured to support their need for creativity as well as innovation. Innovation is the key and significant characteristic of Google.  Similar, Google’s social structure promotes product development which facilitates competition and performance in the busy internet based industry. Through this, Google contributes to business optimization that addresses competitors such as Apple, Microsoft, and Amazon.com.            

4. Power Or Politics Theory

Whatever business an organization is in be it service providing or provision of products, organizations are political structures. This mainly means that an organization operates by stationing a stage for the exercise of power. It no doubts that people who are highly motivated to secure power find security as well as a friendly environment in running organizations. At the same time, managers are unenthusiastic to recognize the place of power both in the organizational relationship and individual motivation. By some means, typical power and politics involve dirty words, and in combining these words to the play of characters in organizations, some executive withdraws into the safety of organizational logic. Organizations give power to individuals although, from an economic perspective organizations exist to provide services or products and create a surplus of income over the cost. According to scholars, organizations are tremendous political powers or structures that provide opportunities for different persons to develop their careers and likewise provide a platform for the expression of personal motives and interest (Haunschild, Nienhueser and Weiskopf, 2009, p. 325). Notably, development of jobs at high professional and managerial levels rests on the accumulation of power as the trigger for transforming individual interests in routines that affect other people. Political pyramid tends to exist in places or economies with power scarcity. The inadequacy of power sets under two conditions; first where an individual attracts power under the absolute terms of someone else’s expense, second where there is comparative gain and not necessary at someone’s else expense. Whether it is the first condition or the second condition, the psychology of comparison and scarcity takes over. People tend to make comparisons as the basis of their sense of self-esteem. A person may compare himself with other persons and decide his or her absolute loss or the change in proportionate shares of power reflects attraction in the power base. A person may likewise compare their position with other people’s position and immediately feel a sense of loss. Experts believe that this sense or the tendency to equate is deeply rooted within people. Power and politics also tend to affect the decision-making process within an organization and this literary jeopardize its success. There is a visible difference within an organization that decisions are entirely single-handedly made and an organization where decisions are formed as a team. Team decision making is one of the many aspects that has caused Google to top its league. Even though Sergey Brin and Larry Page are the founders of Google, they went ahead and employed Eric Schmidt to act as CEO of Google. This means that Google is never a dictatorship where conclusions are only made by a senior person. Instead, several small teams attack a problem and employees likewise try to influence each other using rational persuasion as well as data.  

5. Theories

            Organizational theories explain the operations of the organization to discover understanding as well as the appreciation of organizations. According to scholars, organizational theory attracts different bodies of knowledge. Organizational theories include classical, contingency, system and organizational structure and lastly neoclassical theories.

a) Classical Organizational Theory

            This theory was first understood during the industrial revolution. It tends to focus on productivity as well as efficiency and likewise, does not take the behavioural attributes of the employees to account.  This theory combines scientific management, administrative theory and bureaucratic theory. Scientific management comprises optimum equipment as well as personal and likewise examining each component in the production process. The bureaucratic theory focuses on the establishment of the hierarchical structure of power, and lastly, organizational theory tends to establish universal ideologies that are standard to all organizations.

b) Neoclassical Organizational Theory

            Neoclassical theory is a response to the power structure of the classical theory. This theory focuses and emphasizes on the human needs or the need of employees to be happy in their work environment. Notably, this gives space for creativity, personal growth as well as motivation and in turn increases productivity and profits.  Executive employing this theory manipulate their work environment to produce good results.       

6. Common Practices

            Although these technology organizations have different leadership, motivation and political culture they have shared values alike, for instance, they all value innovation. For example, in Facebook, the top executives are just like other employees on the team. Therefore, since organizations are comprised of people and many or most people want to be part of successful organizations, in particular, the most successful organizations which provide excellent work experience for its employee. Improving organizational behavior especially in the behavioral context is necessary. To achieve this, it is therefore essential to set clear job goals reinforcing positive outcome as well as recognize real achieved goals.

Reference List

Cerrone, C. and Manna, E. (2018). Pay for Performance with Motivated Employees — the B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, 18(1).

Collins, B., Galvin, B. and Meyer, R. (2018). Situational Strength as a Moderator of the Relationship between Organizational Identification and Work Outcomes. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies,

Cova, B. and Guercini, S. (2016). Passion et entrepreneurial: Vers un entrepreneur tribal? Revue de l’Entrepreneuriat, 16(2), p.15.

Francescato, D. and Aber, M. (2015). LEARNING FROM ORGANIZATIONAL THEORY TO BUILD ORGANIZATIONAL EMPOWERMENT. Journal of Community Psychology,     43(6), pp.717-738.

Haunschild, A., Nienhueser, W. and Weiskopf, R. (2009). Editorial: Power in Organizations – Power of Organizations. Management revu, 20(4), pp.320-325.

Hjørland, B. (2013). Theories of Knowledge Organization—Theories of Knowledge. KNOWLEDGE ORGANIZATION, 40(3), pp.169-181.

Klubeck, M., Langthorne, M. and Padgett, D. (2010). Why organizations struggle so hard to improve so little. Santa Barbara, Calif.: Praeger, p.45.

Lincoln, S. and Robards, B. (2014). 10 years of Facebook. New Media & Society, 16(7), pp.1047-1050.

Pamphilus (2015). In the Magazines. Worldview, 5(10), pp.2-3.

Panicker, S. (2018). Economic Growth and FDI Organizational Motivation of Global FDI. Journal of Advances and Scholarly Researches in Allied Education, 15(6), pp.150-       152.

Rugulies, R. (2018). What is a psychosocial work environment?. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health.p.45

Sasi Kumar, P., Vimal, K. and Manikandan, M. (2014). Technological advancement in materials and manufacturing for industrial environment, TAMMIE ’16. p.54.

Sofo, F. (2013). Designer Leadership: Research Perspectives on Learning Transfer for Generative Educational Leadership. The International Journal of Educational           Organization and Leadership, 19(1), pp.13-26.

Soules, A. (2013). I Google, You Google, We Google... Against the Grain, 20(2).

Steyaert, J. (2011). Scholarly communication and social work in the Google era. Journal of Social Intervention: Theory and Practice, 20(4), p.79.