UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MARA SABAH BRANCH

KOTA KINABALU CAMPUS

MGT3214G3
DIPLOMA IN BUSINESS STUDIES
MARCH 2024 – AUGUST 2024

MGT269
GROUP ASSIGNMENT: CASE STUDY REPORT (20%)

CASE STUDY

CHAPTER 8: DECISION-MAKING

PREPARED BY:

STUDENT ID NAME
2022872692 MOHD DANIAL HAKIM BIN ABDUL ARIF
2022847508 MOHAMMAD AMIN BIN ALLEH@KASSIM
2022820342 ABDUL QAYYUM BIN ASBULLAH
2022859844 ARVINA PAILIS
2022291674 MUHD FADHIL MUTASIM BIN MOHD FAIDZAL

PREPARED FOR:

MDM KHAIRIAH MAZDIAH BT KALIMIN

FACULTY OF BUSINESS AND MANAGEMENT

UiTM SABAH BRANCH, KOTA KINABALU CAMPUS
SUBMISSION DATE: 26 MAY 2024

1
NO. TOPIC PAGE

1.0 CASE STUDY QUESTIONS

2.0 INTRODUCTION
3.0 ANSWER FOR CASE STUDY'S QUESTIONS
4.0 CONCLUSION
5.0 REFERENCES

2
1.0 CASE STUDY QUESTIONS

Google is one of the best -known and most admired companies round the world, so much so that “googling”
is the term many use to refer to searching for information on the Web. Google became the most frequently
used Web search engine on the internet with 1 billion searches per day in 2009, as well as other innovative
applications such as Gmail, Google Earth, Google Maps and Picasa. In a world crowded with search engines,
google was probably the first company that put users first. Google’s mission statement summarizes its
commitment to en-user needs: “To organize the world’s information and to make it universally accessible
and useful.” While other companies were focused on marketing their sites and increasing advertising
revenues, Google stripped the search page of all distractions and presented users a blank page consisting
only of a company logo and a search box. Google resisted pop-up advertising, because the company felt that
it was annoying to end-users.

Google’s culture is reflected in their decision-making as well. Decisions at Google are made in teams. In
other words, this is not a company where decisions are made by the senior person incharge and then
implemented top down. It is common for several small teams to attack each problem and for employees to
try to influence each other using rational persuasion and data. To facilitate teamwork, employees work in
open office environments where private office are assigned only to a select few.

How do they maintain these unique values? Google realizes that its strength comes from its “small company”
values that emphasize risk-taking, agility and cooperation. Therefore, they take their hiring process very
seriously. Hiring is extremely competitive. Candidates may be asked to write essay about how they will
perform their future jobs. Each candidate may be interviewed by as many as eight people on several occasion.
Through this scrutiny, they are trying to select “Googley” employees who will share the company’s values,
perform at high levels and be liked by others within the company.

(Source: Adapted form ER Services Organization Behaviour, https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-

orgbehavior/)

Time to Ponder:

1. From the above case, do you think Google’s decision-making culture will help or hurt Google in the long
run?
2. And what are the strengths and weaknesses of group (versus individual) decision-making?

3
2.0 INTRODUCTION

One of the foremost strengths of group decision-making lies in the diversity of perspectives it
encompasses. Teams bring together individuals with different backgrounds, experiences, and
viewpoints. This diversity can lead to more comprehensive and innovative solutions than those
generated by individuals working in isolation. With multiple minds tackling the same problem, the team
can explore various angles and produce well-rounded decisions. Additionally, the pooling of collective
knowledge and expertise means that groups can access a broader range of information, leading to better-
informed decisions. Enhanced problem-solving is another significant advantage. Groups excel at
identifying problems and generating solutions through collaborative efforts. Brainstorming sessions
allow team members to build on each other’s ideas, fostering creativity and leading to more robust
outcomes. This synergy often results in solutions that might not emerge from individual efforts alone.

Groups and work teams play important roles in organizational decision-making by enhancing the
process through collective input and diverse perspectives. Groups, defined as collections of individuals
who share information and make decisions to support their responsibilities, bring together members
with varying backgrounds, skills, and viewpoints. This diversity fosters creativity and leads to well-
rounded decisions. The sharing of information within a group contributes to a comprehensive
understanding of issues, while collaborative problem-solving enhances decision outcomes. However,
groups face challenges such as groupthink, where the desire for harmony can lead to irrational decisions,
and potential conflicts due to differing opinions. The diffusion of responsibility can also hinder
accountability within groups. Edited 06:01 PM

However, group decision-making also presents challenges. It is often more time-consuming than
individual decision-making. The process of discussion, debate, and consensus-building can be lengthy,
which can be a disadvantage in situations requiring swift decisions. Coordinating schedules to ensure
all members can participate adds another layer of complexity, further slowing down the process.
Conflict and miscommunication are additional hurdles. Differences in opinions, communication styles,
and interpersonal dynamics can lead to conflict within groups, impleading effective decision-making.
Misunderstandings can arise, especially when team member fail to clearly articulate their ideas, leading
to confusion and potential errors.

To maximize the effectiveness of decision-making in groups and teams, certain best practices should
be adopted. Encouraging open communication ensures that all members feel comfortable sharing ideas
and concerns, fostering a more inclusive environment. Forming diverse teams can enhance creativity
and problem-solving capabilities, leveraging varied skills and perspectives. Clear objectives are crucial
for aligning the group's or team's efforts towards a common goal. Effective leadership is essential to

4
guide the decision-making process and manage conflicts, while structured decision-making processes,
such as brainstorming or the Delphi method, help organize and evaluate ideas systematically. These
practices can help groups and teams navigate their challenges and leverage their strengths in decision-
making.

In conclusion, while four heads can indeed be better than one due to the diverse perspectives, enhanced
problem-solving, and shared responsibility they bring, this is not without its drawbacks. The time-
consuming nature of group decision-making and the potential for conflict and miscommunication are
significant challenges that must be managed. Ultimately, the effectiveness of group decision-making
depends on the ability of the team to navigate these strengths and weaknesses, leveraging their collective
capabilities while mitigating the associated challenges.

5
3.0 ANSWERS FOR CASE STUDY'S QUESTIONS

1. From the above case, do you think Google’s decision-making culture will help or hurt
Google in the long run?

Google's decision-making culture is distinctly team-oriented, with a preference for cooperation,

reasoned argument, and data-driven discussion over adopting top-down commands. This culture is
further fostered by an open office atmosphere that fosters teamwork among them, a highly
comprehensive new hiring process, a strong dedication and courage in taking chances, and the agility
and cooperation of the organization's "small company".

Google’s strategy of team-based decision-making has multiple benefits, especially in fostering

innovation and creativity. When numerous small teams collaborate on problem-solving, a diverse array
of ideas and perspectives is generated. This collaborative environment encourages creative thinking and
the emergence of unexpected ideas that might be overlooked in a more hierarchical structure. Google
harnesses the collective intelligence of its workforce to drive innovation, a critical factor in maintaining
a leading position in the technology sector. This innovative approach is exemplified by Google's
continuous enhancements to its search algorithms. Innovations like PageRank, Hummingbird, and Rank
Brain have significantly improved the accuracy and relevance of search results. Rank Brain, an AI-
powered system, interprets difficult searches to provide consumers with more relevant results. This
innovation not only enhances the user experience, but it also helps Google retain its search engine
supremacy. By encouraging creativity and invention, Google stays at the forefront of technical
improvement, assuring long-term growth, competitiveness, and a beneficial influence on society.

Google's culture of involving employees in decision-making has the potential to significantly boost
employee engagement and satisfaction. Employees that feel valued and heard are more motivated and
committed to their work. This sense of ownership and responsibility generates a pleasant work
environment, resulting in better job satisfaction and engagement. For example, Google organizes open
meetings on a regular basis, allowing employees to exchange ideas and offer direct feedback to senior
management, including the CEO. Weekly sessions such as "TGIF" (Thank God It's Friday) allow
employees to express questions and submit ideas to corporate management. Engaged employees are not
only more productive, but also more inclined to go above and beyond to meet corporate goals, which
contributes to Google's success.

Google's emphasis on "small company" traits like risk-taking and agility enables the company to
respond swiftly to market or industry developments. In today's fast changing technology ecosystem, the
capacity to pivot and adapt to new problems and opportunities is critical. Google's collaborative

6
decision-making process and open office atmosphere promote rapid communication and collaboration,
allowing the firm to execute changes quickly and efficiently. For example, during the COVID-19
epidemic, Google immediately changed and extended Google Meet, making it free to users and
introducing new features to compete with competing video conferencing services like Zoom. This
speedy change enables Google Meet to rapidly increase its user base.

Google's intricate hiring process aims to pinpoint candidates with the necessary skills and alignment
with the company's values. Prioritizing attributes like humility, adaptability to dynamic environments,
and a passion for innovation and advancement, Google seeks individuals who resonate with its
organizational ethos. To ensure cultural fit and effectiveness in a collaborative environment, Google
requires candidates to craft essays on their prospective job performance and undergo numerous
interviews. This exhaustive selection method enhances Google's enduring performance by nurturing a
top-tier workforce. Employees who embrace the company's values are better poised to deliver
significant contributions and seamlessly assimilate into teams.

Another obstacle is reconciling conflicts and nurturing team unity. When numerous teams tackle similar
challenges, disagreements may arise, and methodologies can diverge. Prior to the introduction of
Google Pay, Google provided two payment services: Google Wallet and Android Pay. Each was
developed independently, with comparable aims but differing approaches. Such circumstances might
result in user perplexity and counterproductive internal rivalry. Google consolidated the two services
into Google Pay, directing attention towards a unified payment platform. Effective communication and
conflict resolution mechanisms are imperative to sustain coherence and ensure all teams are aligned
towards common goals. Project managers and team leaders are pivotal in resolving issues and
guaranteeing alignment across teams. To fully leverage its collaborative ethos, Google must invest in
systems and protocols that facilitate seamless coordination and synchronization.

Google's recruitment process guarantees both cultural compatibility and exceptional performance, yet
it entails substantial resource allocation. The extensive interviews and essay requirements may slow
down the recruiting process and repel some highly qualified candidates who find the approach too
demanding. In the fast-paced technology industry, postponing recruitment may cause Google to fall
behind in meeting the expectations of a constantly changing market. For example, if a new project in
artificial intelligence or cyber security requires certain skills, a lengthy recruitment process may result
in missed opportunities to hire specialists who may choose to work for another firm that has a faster
recruiting process. Google must constantly enhance its hiring practices in order to stay effective and
attract top talent without becoming a bottleneck.

7
Finally, one of the flaws in Google's decision-making system is the inability to prioritize the Delphi
technique. The Delphi method is a predictive process and structured communication framework based
on the results of many rounds of questionnaires given to a panel of experts. After each set of questions,
experts receive an aggregated summary and can alter their replies based on the group's responses.
Companies must understand that some problems cannot be handled by employees in a "small company"
and must be solved by professionals in the industry. This sort of challenge requires a lengthy decision-
making process.

Without a technique like the Delphi Method, information from many specialists in important domains
may go unnoticed. As a result, judgments may be made that do not take into account all relevant factors
or perspectives. Google's poor practice of forming tiny teams of attacking workers and attempting to
convince one another through persuasion and reasonable evidence is diametrically opposed to the
Delphi Method. Without emphasizing the Delphi Method, Google risks making ineffective, biased, and
inconsistent decisions. This can lead to internal conflicts, difficult implementation, and employee
distrust. Google may use the Delphi Method to improve the quality and impartiality of its decision-
making.

Google's decision-making culture values cooperation, data-driven conversations, and a rigorous

recruiting process. This culture has the potential to achieve long-term success by encouraging
innovation, increasing employee engagement, and boosting adaptability. However, the firm must handle
issues such as decision-making speed, conflict resolution, and the resource-intensive nature of its hiring
process, which are not addressed by the Delphi approach. Google's collaborative and efficient culture
enables it to maintain a competitive edge and thrive in the technology industry. Finally, the benefits of
Google's decision-making culture are likely to outweigh the drawbacks, positioning the company for
long-term success.

8
2. And what are the strengths and weaknesses of group (versus individual) decision-making?

a) Strengths and weaknesses (Group Decision-Making)

Group decision-making is a critical aspect of organizational behavior, offering a mix of strengths and
weaknesses that can significantly influence the outcomes. Understanding these can help organizations
leverage the benefits while mitigating the challenges.

One of the primary strengths of group decision-making is the diverse perspectives it brings to the table.
Groups consist of individuals with varied backgrounds, experiences, and viewpoints, which can lead to
more comprehensive and creative solutions than those derived from individual decision making. This
diversity allows for a more thorough exploration of options and potential outcomes, resulting in better-
informed decisions. Furthermore, groups can pool their knowledge and expertise, accessing a broader
range of information and insights that enhance the decision-making process.

Another advantage is enhanced problem-solving. Collaborative efforts often lead to improved problem
identification and more robust solution generation. Group members can brainstorm and build on each
other's ideas, creating a synergistic effect that fosters innovation and effectiveness. This collective
approach can uncover hidden issues and generate solutions that might not emerge from individual
efforts alone.

Shared responsibility is also a significant strength. When decisions are made collectively, the
responsibility is distributed among all members, reducing the burden on any single individual. This
shared accountability can lead to more confident decision-making and a higher level of commitment to
implementing the decisions.

However, group decision-making is not without its drawbacks. One major weakness is that it is time
consuming. The need for discussion, debate, and consensus-building often means that group decision
making takes longer than individual decision-making. This can be particularly disadvantageous in
situations requiring quick resolutions. Additionally, coordinating schedules to accommodate all
members can further slow the process.

Conflict and miscommunication are also potential issues. Differences in opinions, communication
styles, and interpersonal dynamics can lead to conflicts within groups, hindering effective decision
making. Misunderstandings and miscommunications can occur, especially when members fail to clearly
articulate their ideas, leading to confusion and errors.

9
In conclusion, while group decision-making offers significant advantages such as diverse perspectives,
enhanced problem-solving, and shared responsibility, it also comes with challenges like being time-
consuming and susceptible to conflict and miscommunication. Organizations must navigate these
strengths and weaknesses to harness the full potential of group decision-making.

b) Strengths and weaknesses (Individual Decision-Making)

Individual decision-making in an organization is when one person, often a supervisor or manager, takes
responsibility for choices that affect the organization. In the workplace, individual decision making is
often used for routine matters, for immediate action, or to establish a clear chain of command. This is
useful for efficiency and timely response, but may lack versatile group decision making input. They are
made in the context of routine programmed decisions where the analysis of different alternative is
simple and for which there is extensive political guidance. Sometimes important unprogrammed
decisions are also made by individuals. Individuals have a tendency to think and question before acting.
This is useful in analyzing and forecasting individuals’ behavior. There are some strengths and
weaknesses of individual decision-making that will be discussed further.

For the strengths of individual decision-making is typically faster than group decision making.
Individual decisions can typically be made more quickly than group decisions that which can involve
discussion and debate. Individuals can quickly assess situations and make choices without the need for
group discussions or consensus-building while group decision requires the agreement and opinion of
group members to determine the decisions that should be made. Indirectly, individual decision-making
can save more time and quickly than group decision-making which can wastage of time or delay in
decisions.

Other than that, best individual in a group usually outperforms the group that occurs for several reason
for example expertise & knowledge, and avoidance of groupthink. For the expertise & knowledge, the
best individual in a group usually outperforms the group often have superior expertise and knowledge
relevant to the decisions being made. Their deep understanding allows them to analyze information
more effectively and predict potential outcomes better than the groups collective judgement, which may
dilute the decision-making process with less-informed opinions. Next, avoidance of groupthink can
result from discussion of sub-optimal and irrational decisions from desire for harmony or conformity
from the group. Individuals will be less likely to experience this pressure because they will be more
inclined to stick to the perspective of the information, they have which indirectly can lead to better
decisions.

10
Lastly, accountability in individual decision-making is the ability to take responsibility, determine
actions and consider an action. This includes ownership and focus on desired outcomes, set challenging
goals, development of new value-added solutions, actions to achieve or exceed goals & priorities,
response to changes in direction and improvement of current practice. It is taking responsibility for both
decision-making process and outcomes of decisions and actions. In individual decision-making
accountability is easier to determine than group decision-making because individual make a decision
bears full responsibility for the outcome.

For the weaknesses of individual decision-making is fewer idea. Individual decision-making is likely
to lack the diversity of perspectives and creative ideas when compared to what collaboration in groups
can offer. When comparing individual ideas with the group, the group will exceed the individual
because of the agreed result of discussion among the members of the group. Individual decision-making
has difficulty in having creative ideas that make the decisions made less interesting but good. The lack
of ideas becomes one of the shortcomings that has a deep impact in individual decision-making.

Other than that, identifying the best individual can be challenging is more reasons why can this happen
for example bias & subjectivity, and recognition & trust. For bias & subjectively is the process of
identifying the best individual that can be influenced by subjective or personal opinion. Leader may
favor individuals based on personal preferences, charisma or relationship rather than objective measures
of expertise and competence. Next, recognition & trust is due to lack of communication skills, lack of
visibility or other factors that affect their ability to make decisions, they are not recognized even if the
individual is the most competent.

Lastly, possible to put off making decisions if left alone to do it. This can happen because the decisions
that needs to be made is only determined by individual. This is because some decisions made do not
have the best result and are less creative. In individual decision-making, things like this often happen
because the attitude of procrastinate will cause bad effects in decision-making. There are various other
deficiencies in individual decision-making that can cause some things in making decisions to be more
difficult or less satisfying.

11
4.0 CONCLUSION

In Conclusion, Google’s decision-making culture and individual decision-making each both have their
own advantages and disadvantages. Google’s team-oriented culture focuses on fostering innovation and
employee engagement, both of which are critical to the company’s sustained technical leadership.

However, it also comes with some challenges that must be overcome in order to achieve long-term
success. One of the most difficult issues is resolving conflicts. Disagreements and different approaches
will exist when many teams work on the same tasks. It requires great communication skills and effective
ways to resolve conflicts. It is important so that it can keep the positive relationships and making sure
that all teams are working toward the same objectives. Project managers or team leaders play a crucial
role in solving conflict resolution, but the company must also invest in training and development
programs to ensure they possess the necessary skills.

Other than that, Individual decision-making provides some advantages such as speed, experience, and
great satisfied, but it might be limited in terms of various ideas for determining the optimal conclusion.
To maximize decision-making processes and achieve long-term success, organizations must balance
these methods, build their own strength while reducing their flaws. To maximize decision-making
processes and promote long-term success, organizations must balance these methods, using the
strengths of both individual and collective decision-making while mitigating their flaws.

Google’s continual refinement of its collaborative culture, along with aspects of individual
accountability and expert advice, is likely to assure its continued development and market leadership.
This enables Google to maintain its innovative edge and flexibility. By promoting a variety of ways,
Google may benefit from the speed and expertise of individual decision-making while retaining the
creativity and diverse perspectives associated with team-oriented strategies.

12
5.0 REFERENCES

11.5 decision making in groups – Principles of management. (2015, October

27). https://open.lib.umn.edu/principlesmanagement/chapter/11-5-decision-making-

in-groups/

Decision making in groups | Principles of management. (n.d.). Lumen Learning – Simple Book

Production. https://courses.lumenlearning.com/atd-tc3-

management/chapter/decision-making-in-groups/

Group decision-making vs individual decision-making: Pros and cons. (n.d.). Professional Paper

Writing Service - Best Essay Writers at $10. https://pro-

papers.com/samples/business/decision-making/group-decision-making-vs-individual-

decision-making

Individual decision making - Pros and cons. (n.d.). Management Study Guide - Courses for Students,

Professionals & Faculty

Members. https://www.managementstudyguide.com/individual-decision-making.htm

Individual versus group decision making: Balancing perspectives. (2023, November 14). MBA Hub -

Most Organised & Comprehensive MBA Resource. https://mbahub.in/management-

functions-and-organisational-processes/individual-versus-group-decision-making/

Managing group decision making | Principles of management. (n.d.). Lumen Learning – Simple Book

Production. https://courses.lumenlearning.com/wm-

principlesofmanagement/chapter/barriers-to-individual-decision-making/

What is individual decision? Definition, features, & examples. (2023, October 16).

mbanote. https://mbanote.org/individual-decision-

making/#What_is_Individual_Decision

13