The Strategic Development of Organizations - Essay Example

How can the behavioral, physical and symbolic manifestations of the cultural web inform the strategic development of organizations? Instructor Institution Date Introduction In a general sense, culture in an organization is the predictable character it espouses, that which people expect and take for granted in the context of the organization. Given that the term culture is mostly recognizable from an anthropological as opposed to corporate perspective, one may digress in search of a comparison albeit in this case a slightly stereotyped one. The Scott for example are known for many things prominently among them a strong attachment to their tradition, one of the ways through which some of these are represented is in the uniqueness of some of the cultural dress such as the kilt or the musical bagpipes which will hardly exist anywhere in the world without a Scottish context. Similarly in the same way one thinks Scotland when they hear bagpipes or see a kilt some organizations have specific cultures which are inherently tied to their business practice in the economic and literal sense. Various international companies have distinguished themselves by their organizational culture and in cases when this is well managed; it has proven to be as invaluable as any well though business strategy. A firm like Google is recognized for its easy going operations culture in which the employees have are allowed a free reign to exploit their creativity without the convectional strictness in many similar firms. Others like apple Inc. have also established themselves as creativity hubs with creativity and self-expression being given the forefront, this for this such companies have been ranked among the best places to work and their overall performance proves that their easy going corporate culture can indeed be very profitable. This paper seeks to examine how the behavioral, physical and symbolic manifestations of the cultural web inform the strategic development of organizations by using Google as an example in the context of which various elements of organizational culture and their perceived impacts will be discoursed on different theoretical grounds. Admittedly, this topic is hardly new and in the past few decades, much as been written about the underlying connection between organization strategy and organization culture, managers have all along being urged to link the gap so as to manage their organizations’ cultural context (Johnson 1992, p.28). Nevertheless, a lot of these discourses have been fundamentally theoretical and while there are elements of reality in them, they are very general and rarely provide practical directions especially in view given the diversity of organization and their strategic and cultural possibilities. The foundation of culture in any organization can be traced down to the shared beliefs between individual managers and even employees, without a doubt, individuals in the firm hold numerous diverse beliefs various factors. However at some point there is a set of core beliefs that are generally shared especially the decision makers, these according to Gerry Johnson (1992, p.29) these shared belief comprise a cultural paradigm which is founded on the “deeper level of basic assumptions and beliefs”. These are the beliefs that by definition evolve into the “taken for granted” aspects of the organizations view about itself which mediate its interaction with both internally and externally. Culture is a diverse concept and this is not different in the organizational context, with time it evolves in tandem with the managerial style as well as the nature of its leaders and these can be discerned in the operational routines, symbolic representations and business ethics. Schien’s Theory There exists a multiplicity of organizational culture theories (Allaire and Firsirotu 1984, p.183), some of them claim that organizational culture is abstract and can only be applied but it cannot be seen or touched. While this claim is very popular and it does indeed have merit, it is not entirely true, Schein’s theory of organizational culture categorizes it into three levels, the artefacts, espoused believes and values and basic underlying assumptions (2004). One of the main approaches towards the study of corporate culture is the cultural web, it was developed in 1992 by Gerry Johnson (Johnson 1992, p.29) and through it one can exposed the underling cultural values and assumptions and from there align the different organizational elements with each other and ultimately the overlying business strategy. The Cultural Web The web distinguishes 6 interactive element that consist the paradigm of the work environment and through an in-depth analysis of these, one begins to acquire clarity in their perception of their organization culture to better appraise what is working and what needs changing or improvement (Johnson n.d, p.3). Briefly these are; the stories that make up the company’s history, the rituals and daily behavior that employee in agree are acceptable behavior, the symbols, the organizational structure which is defined by the organization chart and unwritten power hierarchies. They control financial, quality systems and finally power structures which comprise the main source of power and inspiration within the organization. Analysis: Google Along with Schien’s theory and other theoretical perspectives, this web will be used in the following analysis of Google’s corporate culture. From the web, one can easily integrate the story of Google’s foundation which is a representation of how the firm is run even today. In many ways the story Google and archetypical contemporary the fairy tale romance of the IT world, it was founded by two colleges students Larry Paige and Sergei Bin as part of a research project in 1997; it evolved from a company called backrub housed in a garage to becoming one of the most influential companies in the world today. The relaxed and laid back attitude of a firm started by casual dressing and working students has remained largely unchanged and today employees are allowed to come to work at their own convince (As long as they meet their targets of course) bring their pets to the office and even dress casually. When new employees enter the firm, they are told “legends” of the firm’s foundation this serves to motivate them to express themselves creatively. Some people loosely define organizational culture as “how we do things around here” in Google’s case the answer would be freely and uninhibited without the constraints of conforming to convectional white or blue collar practices. Application of Theory Schiens theory describes artefacst as he first level of organizational culture; there is the surface level manifestations of culture than can be seen and even touched in some cases, in Google’s case on of the most overt symbols of their cultural diversity can be seen in their logos. They espouse a culture of all-inclusiveness and this is evident in the numerous culturally adapted doddles they use on their browser on different holidays and occasions, the have a logo, for Christmas, another supporting LGBT people’s right to self-expression and many others which are invented every day to show the extents to which they embrace cultural diversity. In the cultural web this symbolic aspects of corporate culture can be classified under symbols, such as the dress code, the company cars and titles and many others symbolic representation of uniformity in the endeavor to achieve common goals. The significance of the symbolic elements of corporate culture can be underpinned in the context of the theory of symbolic interaction as postulated by George Herbert Mead and Horton, Cooley under this theory, it is assumed that: Individuals and societies cannot be divorced from each other primarily for two reasons; they are both products of social interaction and they would be impossible to understand unless each is contexturized in terms of the other (Meltzer, Petras & Reynolds, 1975). Therefore, the way people behave or respond to certain symbols is not defined by organic drives or environmental forces but by reflective as socially pre-programmed meanings acquired through the socially constructed meanings they apply on a given symbol. In Google’s case, the reputation it has created over the years for trust and dependability makes it easy for users to appreciate its symbolic aspects (The Economist, 2009); in most cases form positive associations which works in favor to the firms strategic managements as it serves to popularize their products by cementing a positive reputation of quality and all-inclusiveness. The second level contains the espoused beliefs and values, these include strategic goals and shared ideals and perceptions, most of which are instilled by the founders and leaders of a given organization. Cameron and Quinn postulated a model describing for types of culture namely, hierarchy, clan market and adhocracy, in this model the hierarchy culture is based on the bureaucracy theory by Max Weber. This is focused on internal efficiency and corporation; ideally a firm should focus on its strong points and dominant characteristic (Cameron and Quiin, 1999). Google has diversified their activities to technology in creating new devices and gadgets such as the Google glasses, car and even the smartphones and chrome-book laptops however, they have been careful not to diverge too far from the business of providing information services and answers for their global audience. The clan culture focuses on flexibility as opposed to stability, in Google’s case, the two are mutually inclusive; Google promotes flexibility by giving its employees a free reign. To a large extent, Google’s stability and the sustainability of its success is dependent on the innovativeness of employees which is primarily fostered by creating a flexible and relaxed environment. The market culture is oriented to the control and focus on the external organization affairs, Google’s market culture is based on the use of market information to achieve higher levels of production and ultimately competitiveness. Finally there’re is the adhocracy culture which is based on ensuring that the organization emphasizes change and flexibility rather than resistance, Google probably understands the importance of flexibility to change better than any other company (Ahmadi, Yashar and Mohammadreza 2012, p.288). In the highly competitive market where new technologies are unveiled every day many of which are disruptive any firm that survives as long as Google has to be capable of quickly adapting and even preempting change. Resting change in the intent market is synonymous to courting danger and irrelevance has been evinced by the recent takeover of Nokia which was slow to adapting to the change in the mobile market. Google adheres to the adhocracy culture by being a pacesetter and leading from the front when it comes to improve flexibility initiate and control change. Google is an ideal cases study subject especially because the firm’s two co-founders Sergei Bin and Larry Paige are actively involved in its running. As mentioned in the cultural web, one should consider the power structures in a firm (Kotler 2004, p.62), in Google’s case, the legends and routines are given life by the fact that their originators live and work among them. The Founders are instrumental as a source of motivation and inspiration for the employees and their openness and accessibility, given that they have the power to make major decisions makes the firms employees feel empowered due to their a perceived closeness to the centers of power. The firms strives to provide the fastest web browsing and innovative products for its users, this has been evinced in the fact that its services and products are highly ranked both for popularity and quality. Google has also set out to entrench a culture of relaxation and freedom for its employees so as to foster creativity which is a key tenet of the firm’s success; to this end they are provided with flexible working hours and numerous recreational facilities including gymnasiums and other sporting avenues not to mention a competitive pay package, allowances and insurance (The Economist, 2009). As such when one is applying for a job in Google, they are assured they will work in one of the most comfortable work environments in the world, and the clients take for granted that the services provided by the firm will be fundamentally more efficient than those of any other firm. Schien’s final level is the underlying primary conventions of the managerial principles, these are entrenched in the insentient expectations taken for granted that are communal throughout the organization. In Google’s case, there are several of this, for one, the firm which is no longer a startup insists of operating like one, this implies that the role of management is shared by the whole team of employees same as many startups do. While this is hardly unconscious, the underlying implication is everyone with and opinion in Google is not only allowed but even encouraged to share and develop it. In fact a committee in which the two co-founders sit regularly meets to discourse and evaluate new ideas since so as to ensure as many as possible are discoursed and developed. Therefore, there is a unique sense of freedom for Google employees and they will openly share ideas without fear of being humiliated or outright rejected as is the case in some less open minded firms. However the most profound underlying assumption in the firm which cuts across from the staff to uses world over is trust, Jeff Davis in his book, “what would Google do” posits that there exists and inverse relationship between control and trust (Jackson, 2013). The firm operates on a basis of trust under the assumption that if the internet users are trusted they will lead Google to the results they wish to find; therefore, they have worked to provide infrastructure to facilitate this. By creating content based primarily on observed customer preference, Google has established itself as a trustworthy company and that is why many arguments in the digital age are often settled by “lets Google it.” Diversity Culture and Challenges Embracing diversity and even encouraging it is a key elements of Google’s culture and corporate tradition, consequently is receives numerous benefits as well as challenges. It has an immense network of consumers internationally who in using its service serve to increase its relevance as well as bottom line. The team at Google is as diverse as the audience as it hires thousands of employees form different social cultural backgrounds ergo it has a lot in common with its consumers and this contributes to increasing the amount of knowledge and cultural awareness. There are however challenges of integrating the organizational culture and the strategic management for one, dealing with the level of diversity the firms has tends to requires a great deal of conflict management training and awareness to be spread throughout the company. Accurate information is imperative in cultural sensitivity and for Google to successfully implement corporate culture they have to carry out constant research not only for the staff but the clients (The Economist, 2009). By putting itself in a position where it has established itself as the main source of information for clients across diverse cultures it often faced with cultural conflict resulting from the contents available and accessible on its servers. Being and American company the firm generally embraces the liberal ideals of America in as far as all-inclusiveness and freedom of speech and secularism are concerned. This has however being a major challenge especially in country whose social political climate is not friendly to the openness that Google espouses. For example in China, the results are heavily censored by the community government to prevent citizens from accessing certain information deemed to be anti-government. In addition the openness of Google which allows customers sometimes causes offense in some of the more conservative societies especially when it comes to matters of sexuality and pornography laws. This has resulted in a great deal of cultural conflict and Google has been censored and in some cases entirely banned in some countries especially those that are governed by a religious law such as sharia law in Muslim countries. Benefits of Corporate Culture For a firm to achieve the level of success enjoyed by Google, it needs must not only acquire but sustain a competitive advantage, the content of the culture in the firm needs be congruent with the companies objectives and the values it stands for (Muratović 2013, p.61). Google’s main source of competitive advantage is in its innovativeness which in its industry a firm is only as good as it capacity to be constantly innovative in terms of products and services. To this end Google has been highly successful in integrating its goals of innovation and the culture, essentially the people corporate culture as it has been extensively demonstrated previously encouraged people to pursue their creativity. Google employees are not only allowed to express their creativity in their work but also their lifestyle and work ethics. Strategically, a company’s orientation in creating value for it consumers involves creating increasing reducing or maintaining an organization culture as the case may be. The informal product culture practiced by Google has been instrumental in helping the firm achieve a strategic edge over its contemporaries, the open vertical and horizontal communication allows ideas to percolate upwards form googlers to senior managers without and formal process or bureaucracies being followed. Admittedly, this worked well when the firm was in its infancy, however, at present it has become a giant with over 20,000 employees and this culture is increasingly becoming difficult (The Economist, 2009). To prevent the stifling of good ideas, the firm used a number of committee’s dedicated to listening to the ideas and acting on them, furthermore it has given some projects more autonomy and independent. Therefore, they have so far managed to operate with the openness of a startup which encourages creativity and innovation as the staff all feel they are valuable and contribute to the firm in a significant way. Google is just one of the brands whose success has been heavily influenced by its corporate culture selected for this paper mostly due to its visibility and immense success there are numerous other firms today that enjoys success because their ability to integrate their culture and business strategy. The chairman of Wal-Mart, Don Soderquist says that the main reason behind the firm’s rapid rise from a minor retail company to a marketing giant with and interstate international latitude is the quality of the organizational culture it espoused (Flamholtz and Randle 2011, p.18). The same has been said for other successful firms such as Starbucks and Apple. Inc., conversely General Motors which was ones among the most influential motor vehicle franchises in the world is currently struggling for its very survival in a market which has been taken over by its rivals. The reason for this phenomenal fall; poor organization culture, it has been suggested that GM has failed to contexturized its organization culture past the boundaries of its home state despite its large market base (Flamholtz and Randle 2011, p.19). Conclusion At the end of the day, one of the main questions that have been asked in regard to Google’s exceptional performance and outstanding organizational culture is; does Google perform well because it has a good culture or does it have a good culture because it performs well. Given the evidence and theories discussed above, this should be an easy question to answer, from the insight in the firms culture and its retrospective foundations, there is little doubt that its organizational culture played a profound role in putting it on to and keeping it there. The founders believed that for them to be perpetually innovative and productive, they needs must expose their employees to the environment in which their original ideas were contexturized and thrived. An environment where everyone is free to express their artistic and creative selves and a culture of openness in which even a junior employee can get a forum on which to pitch their idea to the firm’s founders and CEOs. By inextricably combining the cultural orientation with the organizational goals Google has managed to achieve and sustain unrivalled success and repeatedly prove to its detractors that one does not need to conform to succeed. References Ahmadi, S, A. Yashar, S and Mohammadreza, D, J.2012. Relationship between Organizational Culture and Strategy Implementation: Typologies and Dimensions. Global Business and Management Research: An International Journal, Vol. 4, No. 3 & 4. Allaire, Y and Firsirotu, E, M. 1984. Theories of Organizational Culture. Organization Studies vol. 5 no. 3 193-226 Cameron, K. and Quiin, R. (1999), Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture. Based on the Competing Values Framework, New Jersey: Jossey-Bass. “Creative tension; The internet giant seeks new ways to foster innovation”. 2009. The Economist. Available at: http://www.economist.com/node/14460051 Flamholtz, G. and Randle, Y. 2011. Corporate Culture; The Ultimate Strategic Weapon. California: Stanford Business Books. Jackson, L. 2013. The Real Secret of Google’s Corporate Culture. Corporate Culture Pros. Available at: http://www.corporateculturepros.com/2013/07/the-real-secret-of-googles-corporate-culture/ Johnson, G. (n.d) Mapping And Re-Mapping Organisational Culture: A Local Government Example . Strategy Explorers. Available at: http://www.strategyexplorers.com/whitepapers/Culture-Web.pdf Johnson, G. 1992. Managing Strategic Change; Strategy, Culture and Action. Long Range Planning, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 28-36. Kotler, P. (2004) Marketinška znanja od Ado Z, Binoza press, Zagreb. Meltzer, B.N., Petras J.W. & Reynolds, L.T. (1975). Symbolic Interactionism: Genesis, Varieties, and Criticism. Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Muratović, H. May 2013. Building Competitive Advantage Of The Company Based On Changing Organizational Culture. Economic Review – Journal of Economics and Business, Vol. XI, Issue 1. Schein, E.H. 2004. Organizational culture and leadership, New Jersey: Jossey-Bass. Read More