Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
Addressing mechanisms that stimulate the learning of business processes plays a significant role in maintaining the sustainable operation of companies of different profiles. The promotion of individual and organizational practices that stimulate the improvement of employees professional competencies is an indicator of qualified management work and interest in achieving the set goals. As an example of the company to analyze, the global Google corporation will be examined in terms of its policy associated with the implementation of learning algorithms. The aim of this paper is to determine what organizational development activities are promoted in Google, as well as to find out whether the proposed mechanisms are effective and if there are individual and organizational constraints that deter from learning.
Organizational Development Activities in Google
Google is characterized as a progressive company that stimulates employees training and encourages the growth of their professional competencies due to the involvement in a continuous educational process. Among organizational development activities (ODAs) mentioned by Blau et al. (2008), in particular, seminars, workshops, and training courses, Google staff takes part in all possible types of knowledge and skills improvement. Constant conferences and thematic meetings contribute to team building and creating a favorable environment for the assimilation of knowledge related to different IT fields. Moreover, employees themselves are aware of the importance of various training programs and strive to increase their potential, which, as Kemper et al. (2020) state, is a crucial indicator of success. As a result, ODAs promoted by the corporation in question are numerous and are seen as essential to enhancing professionalism and increasing productivity. The analysis of the use of IT systems in these practices is an additional aspect to discuss in the context of Googles learning mechanisms.
Organizational Learning Mechanisms and IT Systems
The mechanisms that Googles management promotes to stimulate subordinate learning are the advanced methods of increasing professional competencies. In addition to the approaches mentioned by Blau et al. (2008), one should also pay attention to Clifford and Thorpes (2007) practices that involve facilitated and group training mechanisms. The Google team is large, and this is an indispensable approach to have mentors and others in charge of helping organize training courses. In addition, collective educational activities unite the team, which is one of the objectives of Googles personnel management policy. With regard to the application of IT systems, this direction of learning is advanced. Google is one of the largest corporations working in the field of innovation and promoting the principles of introducing technology into everyday life. This explains the value of the companys base in terms of the possibilities of using IT to train employees. However, the assessment of learning modes would be incomplete without discussing individual and organizational factors that deter from learning.
Personal Deterring Factors
Individual motivation and self-determination are significant aspects that explain the quality of learning. Ng et al. (2006) argue that employees job attitudes and behaviors are crucial factors that influence personnel aspiration for increasing professional qualifications. In Google, the organizational environment is structured in such a way that each employee can find the best tools and practices to strengthen individual professionalism. As potential deterrents, one can note wide access to various information channels and the freedom to choose resources for individual learning. However, the evaluation of Googles activities provides an opportunity to ensure that the staff of the corporation is highly qualified and uses a variety of materials to the advantage. According to Orpen (1997), initiative plays an essential role in achieving high learning outcomes. Kushwaha, and Rao (2017), in turn, note that job satisfaction is a criterion that correlates with learning performance positively. As a result, from the perspective of individual deterrents, there are no significant obstacles in the company in question, but potential organizational constraints also deserve consideration.
Organizational Deterring Factors
Due to the prestige of working at Google and career opportunities, specific aspects of organizational learning can deter from productive training. For instance, as Ashforth and Mael (1989) argue, competition and distinctive values can be obstacles, which may be applied to Google due to the diversity of its workforce. Power differences and group boundaries that Alderfer and Smith (1982) mention can also inhibit successful learning as factors that hinder employee empowerment and freedom. However, in the context of Googles activities, there are no restrictions or constraints. According to Fink et al. (2017), targeted training and routine are negative manifestations of the learning process. Nevertheless, in Google, creativity and friendliness in employee engagement are promoted as valuable principles for maintaining a productive learning environment. Therefore, no organizational aspects are deterrents in the company in question.
Conclusion
The assessment of learning perspectives and conventions in Google confirms that this corporation has an advanced basis for organizing productive and successful staff training. The existing organizational development activities contribute to improving employees qualifications significantly. Moreover, no individual or environmental factors are potential deterrents, which adds value to Googles existing approaches to interaction with subordinates and confirms that its learning algorithms correspond to the high status of the corporation in the global IT arena.
References
Alderfer, C. P., & Smith, K. (1982). Studying intergroup relations embedded in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27(1), 35-65.
Ashforth, B., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 20-39.
Blau, G., Andersson, L., Davis, K., Daymont, T, Hochner, A., Koziara, K., Portwood, J., & Holladay, B. (2008). The relation between employee organizational and professional development activities. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 72(1), 123-142.
Clifford, J., & Thorpe, S. (2007). More ways than one& Exploring the use of different learning methods in organizations. Industrial and Commercial Training, 39(5), 267-271.
Fink, L., Yogev, N., & Even, A. (2017). Business intelligence and organizational learning: An empirical investigation of value creation processes. Information & Management, 54(1), 38-56.
Kemper, J. A., Ballantine, P. W., & Hall, C. M. (2020). Sustainability worldviews of marketing academics: A segmentation analysis and implications for professional development. Journal of Cleaner Production, 271, 122568.
Kushwaha, P., & Rao, M. K. (2017). Integrating the linkages between learning systems and knowledge process: An exploration of learning outcomes. Business Perspectives and Research, 5(1), 11-23.
Ng, T. W. H., Butts, M. M., Vandenberg, R. J., DeJoy, D. M., & Wilson, M. G. (2006). Effects of management communication, opportunity for learning, and work schedule flexibility. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68, 474-489.
Orpen, C. (1997). The effects of formal mentoring on employee work motivation, organizational commitment and job performance. The Learning Organization, 4(2), 53-60.
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.