Googles Organizational Culture - Case Study Example

? Organizational Culture: Google Introduction The concept of organizational culture has received considerable attention within organizational theory in the past decade. Researchers, consultants and mangers have gravitated to the conception of culture to encompass the special approach to life and creation of meanings which evolve within an organization. Different organizations have different organizational cultures. Culture is a new and different conception in understanding organizations. Google has one of the most fascinating organizational cultures. Hofstede (2001) defines culture as a “collective programming of the mind that distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from others” (p.6). In the contemporary world, organizations have tried to motivate their employees with favourable and comfortable organization environments. The multifaceted contacts between employees and workers in Google are seen as determinants of behavior in the place of work. In reference to Bloisi et al (2006, p. 35) the outlines of interactions between the employees and the external environment represent a composite surrounding which has impacted on the behavior of the organization. Over years, different scholars and authors have defined organizational culture differently. In reference to Schultz (1995), “organizational culture refers to the shared values and beliefs over time, which produce behavioural norms that are adopted in solving problems” (p. 134). These ideals help in binding the organization together. In contemporary turbulent organizational environments, organizations are promoting a culture that according to Robbins (2010), promotes, flexibility, change and innovation to achieve success (p. 230). According to the CNBC (2007), Google rewards its employees by providing a relaxed working environment that has for long encouraged innovation and creativity through fun activities such as the roller hockey, video games and a fitness centre. This paper reviews Google’s organizational culture and its implications. Google’s Organizational Culture Evaluating culture is an effort to attain knowledge on the general trends among a large group of people on a very general level. Debatably, in the past decade since the growth of information technology as a result of the internet; Google has proved to be an outstanding company that has impacted on our lives. All ages, races and nations have been impacted by Google. Needless to say, Google is the most visited search engines across the globe. It is worth in excess of 95 billion US dollars (CNBC, 2012). Google upholds an organizational culture that creates an attractive, favorable, and expedient environment for work. Crowther and Green (2004, p. 34) note that an organization should provide a pleasant and comfortable environment for its workers. For this reason, Google provides a favourable environment where all diverse people can work. Lashinsky (2006) reports that there is a sense of unity among the Google employees, they all feel that they are a part of a team that is aimed at attaining Google’s goals (p. 36). Google’s employees are loyal enough to stand out in the rain for a fortune magazine photo shoot (CNBC, 2007). Google clinches multi-cultural service opportunities where most of the people come from different ethnic backgrounds. Mullins (2004) denotes that organizations consist of different cultures which are molded to one culture, the organizational culture (p. 24). All Google employees believe that their dedication and inputs will add value to the company. Their commitment sis portrayed by their work and hard work they put in the company. Google has on its side done its role of motivating and agitating for creativeness. Hofstede developed an organizational culture model that captures culture in four values (Hofstede, 2001); “power distance index, individualism, masculinity and uncertainty avoidance index” (P.134). Particular organizational norms compose an organization’s culture. In essence, the content dimension of culture refers to specific values, norms and styles that characterize the organization. Just like described by Thompson and McHugh (2002, p. 56), Google’s success is rooted to its exceptional organizational practices, norms, values, and core proficiencies. Notably, Google realizes that “the thought-power of its employees” is the most valuable resource (CNBC, 2007). It embraces chaos management where it pays its employees “to think, to experiment and to take risks” (Curtis, 2006, p.56). Arguably, Google’s principle of success lies not only on its capable technology but also on its ferociousness to formulate innovative and profit-oriented projects (Lashinsky, 2006, p. 37). Google employs “70-20-10 Rule” in its management. This implies that the staff can spend 70 percent of their working time on primary business roles, 20 % on related business roles and 10 % on areas of their desire. Google views mistakes and errors as tools for learning where the employees attempt to carry out outrageous thoughts (Kelly, 2007). Debatably, Google has centered its employee motivation on performance appraisals. Robbins (2010) asserts that performance appraisals centers on the development anxieties of any organization (p.232). Google has tried to improve performance appraisals among its employees through increased spotlight on provision of performance response. In addition, unlike many other organizations as described by Thompson and McHugh (2002, p. 46), Google focuses less on worker characteristics and aesthetics. Google focuses less on the worker dressing (CNBC, 2007). CNBC (2007) reports that Google allows employees to come with casual wear to work, skate board, play pool tables, use the swimming pool, play volley ball and access free massage. This provides a suitable environment for the young graduates who consider wearing suits and tie uniform intimidating. Attending work at Google looks as if it’s a prolongation of high school. Google provides a no dress code environment. The informal mood around the working environment of Google has played a valuable part in its success. In reference to the CNBC (2007), Google provides workers with “exercise balls and bicycles which decorate the office space where employees work in small groups furnished comfortably”. Moreover, workers are allowed to come to work along with their pets. CNBC reports that employees can come with dogs and pets so long as they don’t affect other people. In addition, Lashinsky (2006, p. 39) denotes that Google provides free restaurant meals to the staff. The restaurant provides a wide variety of quality healthy meals; from snacks to drinks and main dishes. In reference to Hofstede’s culture model (2001), individualism dimension asserts that individuals should be integrated into groups in any organization to ensure success (p. 25). Google promotes teamwork and group working. It is noted that engineers work in teams while acting on projects. These teams are free in regard to their projects and the way they work on them. This concept of team work depends on the ability of the employees to effectively communicate among them. Team work in Google has been promoted by an effective communication between the upper management, the engineers and project managers (Lashinsky, 2006, p. 39). Organizational communication can be termed as one of the core competences of Google. Communication in organizations serves a number of fundamental purposes. Schultz (1995) denotes that researches focusing on improvement among corporations assert that organizational communication is ranked as a primary element within an organization (110). Miner (2007, p. 313) suggests that communication within organizations serve four major roles which include motivation, control, information and expression. The “Googley” way of work communication process is open and free. This serves as a tract through which suggestions, ideas and insights to spawn change and innovation in the organization. Communication also keeps and retains values and associations essential to retain the system of Google organization. The founder and upper management of Google encourage its employees to extend communication among themselves and in departments. Communication is evident at the restaurant during any meals in the afternoons. CNBC (2007) reported that the employees interact freely during the meals at the restaurant. Some of the employees confess that they even have a lot of fun at work than at home. Miner (2007, p. 312) notes that communication through conducting meetings provides feedback and help employees share corporate wide information. However, it is essential to ensure that communication provided by the organization is consistent and clear. It must address both the organizational and individual concerns. Kelly (2012) asserts that Google embraces employee equality. In reference to Hofstede (2001), worker equality refers to equal distribution of roles and values between the genders in work place. In Google, women receive the same modest, caring values as men. According to the report by CBNC (2007), women and men enjoyed the same facilities offered by the company. The report showed both men and women having fun with the exercise balls provided at office spaces. In addition, women and men equally use the gymnasium and the car wash facilities. Among the items listed by CNBC (2007), there was no discrimination in their use. In reference to Kelly (2012), Google has embraced different people from different ethnic backgrounds and genders. In reference to Hofstede’s power distance dimension, every employee in Google has his or her rightful place and position. Hofstede (2001) defines power distance dimension as ‘the extent to which less powerful members of a society accept that power is distributed unequally”. Google has different roles for its staff. They all try to achieve different departmental objectives. In reference to Hofstede (2001), “uncertainty avoidance dimension as the extent to which people feel threatened by the uncertainty and ambiguity and try to avoid these situations”. Google’s culture is of low uncertainty avoidance and has set informality to construction of life. An organization that embraces change and innovation is epitomized by a low uncertainty avoidance culture. Google promotes innovation and creativeness among its employees. In reference to Hofstede (2001), “low uncertainty avoidance cultures have more active attitude to health by focusing on fitness and sports” (p. 87) just like Google has done. Though chaos management seems to work for Google Company, there are numerous denigrations in its organizational culture. Google lacks a clear management structure, employee relations and ethics (Curtis, 2006, p. 59) The “Googley” way of work may not be suitable. An organization should have a main management arrangement. An organizational arrangement is an essential composition of decision making and planning. The lack of organizational management structure can later result to conflicts among the employees. Having in mind that Google is made up of employees diverse in skills and knowledge, lack of hierarchy can result in confusion in control and decision making. Apprehension of management arrangement is directly connected to improved organizational performance necessitating Google’s management to reassess its organizational composition, job descriptions and designs, and area of control (Curtis, 2006, p. 59). From the report shown by CNBC (2007), Google faces an erosion of work ethics. Different work settings have different work ethics. Work ethics requires employees report at work with official attire. Google Company encourages its employees to come to job with casual clothing. Such a relaxed organizational culture that offers many recreational facilities may lead to reluctance among employees. All in all, these negative issues have not been replicated in Google’s current organizational performance. Needless to say, these negative effects are threats to its success. Though Kelly (2012) reports that Google’s growth is not dependent on its organizational culture, there have to be measures and plans to address such challenges. Conclusion A company’s organizational culture plays a fundamental task in its success. Organizational culture helps a company attract the best talent and skills in the industry. Google’s interesting, attractive and convenient organizational culture has helped it attract the best skills and talent across the globe. It has successfully combined technological creativeness with organizational structure. Though the organizational structure has its demerits, it provides employees with a favourable working environment that promotes creativity and innovation and motivates them. References Bloisi, W., Cook, C. W., & Hunsaker, P. L. (2006). Management and Organizational Behaviour. (2nd ed.). Maidenhead: McGraw Hill. CNBC. "Work in Google." CNBC. CNBC, 18 Apr. 2007. Web. 18 Apr. 2007. Crowther, D., & Green, M. (2004). Organizational Theory. London: CIPD. Curtis, L. ‘‘Will Google become a victim of its own success?’’, Admap,2006. Vol. 41 No. 473, pp. 55-8, Hofstede, G. Culture’s consequences (2nd edn). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.2001. Print. Kelly, C. "O.K, Google, Take a Deep Breath." New York Times [New York] 28 Apr. 2012: n.pag. Web. 28 Apr. 2012. Lashinsky, A., ‘‘Chaos at Google’’, Fortune, 2006. Vol. 154 No. 6, pp. 34-42, Miner, J. B, Organizational Behavior: From theory to practice. M.E. Sharpe, 2007. Print. Mullins, L. J. (2007). Mnanagement and Organizational Behaviour. (9th ed.). Harlow: Pearson Education Ltd. Robbins, S. P. (2010). Organizational Behaviour. Harlow: FT Prentice Hall. Schultz, M. On Studying Organizational Cultures. Walter de Gruyter, 1995. Print. Thompson, P., & McHugh, D. (2002). Work Organizations. London: Macmillan. Read More