Analyse Google's Organisational Culture - Essay Example

Google is considered as one of the leading technology firms in the world with dominance in the search engine market. Over the period of time, it has been able to develop technologies which have radically changed the way individuals interact over internet. What is also important to know that Google has also perfected a relatively unique management culture of chaos? Thriving on its organizational culture and human resource management, Google has developed a corporate culture which is now being followed many organizations in order to support the constant innovative activity at the micro as well as macro level of the organization. This post-industrialist organisation is the world’s largest provider of information on the internet. The working lifestyle, the human friendly environment and the love for the job are three factors which not only shape Google’s organisational culture but also define the ‘googly way of working.’ Founded as a graduate project by Larry Page and Sergey Brin, Google has been able to evolve rapidly due to its efficient technology and an organizational culture which foster creativity and risk taking. Its human resources practices therefore have allowed it tap into the creative mindset of its employees by offering them an environment which is casual and mostly informal in nature. Its product development process has largely remained informal without the significant involvement from senior management. This aspect of management therefore offered Google a relatively different advantage to experience and experiment with new technologies and ideas to move ahead in the competition. The purpose of this essay is to examine and analyse Google’s organisational culture in conjunction with the ‘Googley way of working’ Organisational culture can be defined as "A pattern of shared basic assumptions that was learned by a group as it solved its problems of external adaptation and internal integration, that has worked well enough to be considered valid and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way you perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems"(Schein, 2004, p. 17). Culture is however, believed to be part of a process where there is a certain degree of formality which are often reflected through some sort of social controls. Google also seem to put in place certain social controls which actually allow employees to remain morally accountable and responsible for what they do. (Wilson, 1990). What is critical to understand however, is the link between the culture and control and within this context, Google’s organizational culture may not sustain if the overall culture is not under certain formal or informal controls. Internal controls however, are considered as inherently complex and as is comprised of the activities which are spread across the whole organization. Such complexity of internal controls therefore outlines that the organizations like Google may not continue to hold their current organizational control as such approach may ultimately result into the decline of authority and leadership within the organization. Google was founded by Larry Page and Sergey Brin as a graduate project, they most likely realised its potential however little did they know that this invention would go on to become the world’s leading service provider of online information. It started as a search engine services provider however, over the period of time; it has broadened its overall range of products. It however, derives most of its revenue through advertising services and as such it is advocated that the reliance on one source of revenue may ultimately kill the overall creativity and innovative culture of the organization. (Miner, 2007)  Though the modern society actually allows an individual to choose what role to play however, it unfortunately there is a very little freedom in terms of how that role will be played. Modern organizational cultures therefore also tend to reflect that reality where individuals, though choose to work with such organizations, have very little to do on their own.1 Evaluating Google from this perspective would suggest that its culture gives an impression that individuals work on their own however, there is an inherent control embedded within such activities which makes Google’s overall organizational control a relatively different phenomenon. Google’s overall working style is based upon the notion of chaos management where human behaviour is modelled through an informal structure which ensures that everyone becomes part of the overall working environment. By giving employees a free hand in terms of not following particular dress codes and other office formalities, Google therefore has attempted to create a culture which thrives upon Analysing Google’s culture from the perspective of the human relations movement would suggest that it has been able to develop a culture of mutual trust and understanding. By forming the so called natural groups, Google basically attempt to bring in cohesiveness at the organizational level amid apparent chaos. What is also critical to understand however that Google has been able to remove communication layers to allow its employees to actually set goals and achieve them? Risk taking therefore is considered as a part of the normal course of business where social relationships between employees and managers allow more creativity to take place at relatively rapid pace. As such Google emphasis on creating a worker friendly environment with less hierarchical intervention into the overall working of the employees. (Bruce, 2006) Furthermore the good formal system of tasks and the reporting relationships form its structure. Google places high emphasis on the organic structure it adopts and adheres to. Therefore Google’s structure can be identified as one yielding low complexity, and low formalisation. Even though there is an efficient, productive chain of command present at Google, there are no traces or indicators of bureaucratic style hierarchical structures. This results in a working environment where shared values, shared beliefs and shared understandings are adhered to by Google’s employees. This has enabled me to identify a drawback which is a decrease of innovative ideas arising from differing viewpoints however all will be trying to achieve goals which will only benefit the organisation. This could be one area where the organisation culture fails to gain every benefit from its profound levels of employee interaction and work output. If this was not the case than the advancement of Google’s organisational culture would present the world with a framework on long term economic prosperity. The models based on sociology as well as group studies suggest that the organizations can develop themselves through the process of survival and adaptation in the external environment. The external adaptation and survival largely depends upon developing shared values, goals, means, measurement and coercion. Organizations thriving through adapting external means therefore may have to develop a cohesive net of above mentioned strategic elements in order to survive. However, the case with the Google is relatively different as it dominates an industry which is relatively insulated from the external environment. The core business i.e. search engine services of Google therefore is largely immune from external competition however, its other services such as advertising, email services etc are prone to extensive competition and as such Google’s overall culture have failed to offer it any distinctive advantage in services other than its search engine services. Google’s shared values, shared beliefs and shared understandings make the organisation highly in favour of aspects of the Post Fordism and the Human relations theoretical perspectives. Mayo states that workers act according to sentiments and emotion. He felt that if you treated the worker with respect and tried to meet their needs than they would be a better worker for you and both management and the employee would benefit. Mayo (1933) Google follows and understands Mayo’s writings and sayings. They boost sentiment by increasing motivation and providing other, mostly informal necessities of life within the workplace so they can deal with and counter the emotion factor which controls an employee’s work effort. High loyalty to the organisation is displayed through acts where employees would work through the night without pay just to complete tasks. This loyalty is only achieved by meeting the needs of the employee. What is also important to understand that Google also experienced high attrition rates in the past and as such employees relatively faced the moral obligation to perform better as compared to their other colleagues? Schiens model (three levels of culture) Scheins model is a useful tool for analysing organisational culture. He describes the culture of an organisation as consisting of three levels which are ‘Artefacts’, ‘Espoused values’, and ‘Underlying Assumptions’, these three factors comprise of visual organisational structures and processes, strategies, goals and philosophies, and beliefs which are taken for granted followed by perception, thoughts and feelings. This is highly beneficial to Google as their organisational culture can be related to this model. The above model has attributes which are similar to aspects beliefs in the human relations perspective as they both promote and display a sound understanding which improves the culture of an organisation. Moreover, given that Google has advanced technology, and good production and labour processes it is highly noticeable that Post Fordism is adhered to in this post industrialised organisation. Google serves a global audience so therefore it’s only right if its employees are from a wide spectrum of ethnicities. This adds to Google’s unique culture where shared meaning is one of the norms amongst its employees. Post Modernism shares many similarities with Post Fordism as the two are found amongst post industrialised organisations. (Burrell, 1994) Post modern values however, also been reflected from the fact that Google employees are also required to work for long hours. Some even went on to argue that Google’s motto is that don’t work for money but work to change the world. This set of assumptions therefore outlines that post modern values may be more dominating part of the overall organizational culture. One of the key aspects of post-modern organizations is the diversity of their workforce with focus on profits, employees as well as the customers. It is however, important to note that Google has developed a new model of doing business which is based upon providing free services. Google’s main source of revenue is still one despite offering many services thus suggesting that the organizational culture is focused upon providing services with a relatively different orientation towards the market. It is highly agreeable that Google has the most paramount, cohesive and flexible organisational culture in current times however does this lead us to ask that has an invisible form of power been formed and control mechanisms have been put in place which are people friendly but have a hidden pro eugenicist agenda. Within the power and control of organisations Google adopts a rational model which is followed by expert power, reward power, and legitimate power. This enables Google to balance and let it reap the benefits of its control applications. The Radical Theoretical Perspective covers power, control and worker exploitation. This is highly referred to by the likes of Karl Marx and Max Braverman. To a high degree Google has an invisible power which has created an exploitative culture in the sense where its employees are encouraged to sleep over at work, and to conduct all their non work tasks within Google’s facilities. Karl Marx would label this as surplus value, which benefits the organisation more than the employee; to a degree this eradicates the balance of fairness and understanding between management and the workforce. Marx’s view therefore is largely focused upon the relationship between labour and control of means of production. It is within this perspective that Marx concluded that it is a forced wage labour because labour always have to remain under a constant threat of unemployment and other exploitation.( Gordon, 1968) This affects the social balance of society and the idea of a nuclear family interacting with each other reduces significantly, this will only aid in the lack of personal development for each family member. It is important to understand that according to Marx, the capitalist’s profit comes at the expense of utilization of the labour or employees and as such the output is not controlled by the employee. However, Google have countered this negative aspect by giving its employees periods of recreational time where they can think of and implement innovative ideas. Marxian theory of exploitation also suggests that producers (employees) may be subjected to exploitation by selling their labour at the price lesser than their work. This suggests that the capitalists may exploit the producers in order to profit from the hard work of the employees. There have been some reports suggesting that Google’s overall compensation is not adequate and employees often leave.2 Need to focus more on power + control bring in the post modernist perspective with adequate level of critical analysis In conclusion, reviewing literature relating to organisational culture, Google’s organisational culture is very distinctive and exclusive due to its style of working which is the ‘Googley way of working.’ Google’s creativity is one core aspect which is enabling it to meet the demands of its industry which is in constant rapid change. As the model of Schein (1985) shows espoused beliefs, and values which influence underlying assumptions, thus it can be said that the management ideology can impregnate culture patters. Alvesson (2002) in addition, Google’s highly motivated workforce and its creative set of services can result in the organisation sustaining its high levels of economic performance through sustaining its organisational culture. It is also important to understand that in a postmodern organization, the overall nature of control changes as the impulse for control never fades away.( Lonar,2005) In such a scenario, the overall methods of control only change. The methods such as culture change, the overall vocabulary used, peer evaluation inside teams as well as employee selection are some of the methods through which postmodern organizations exercise their control. As such Google, through its unique organizational culture has put in place controls which may be difficult to overrun by the employees in normal course of business. References Alvesson, M. (2002) Understanding organizational culture, London: Sage. B. Miner, J. (2007) Organizational behavior: From theory to practice, Volume 4, New York: M.E. Sharpe. Bruce, K (2006) Henry S. Dennison, Elton Mayo, and Human Relations historiography." Management & Organizational History  1: p177–199. Burrell, G. (1994) Modernism, Postmodernism and Organizational Analysis 4: The Contribution of Jurgen Habermas, Organization Studies, 15(1), p.1-19. Gordon, S. (1968) Why Does Marxian Exploitation Theory Require a Labor Theory of Value, Journal of Political Economy, 76(1), p.137-140  H. Schein, E. (2004) Organizational culture and leadership, New Yokr: John Wiley & Sons. Lonar, D. (2005) POSTMODERN ORGANIZATION AND NEW FORMS OF ORGANIZATIONAL CONTROL, Economic Annals, 165(1), p.105. Pfister, J. (2009) Managing Organizational Culture for Effective Internal Control: From Practice to Theory, London: Springer,. Wilson, D. (1990) Managing Organizations, 4th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Publishing Co. Read More