Googles Organizational Culture - Case Study Example

Google’s Organizational Culture Introduction Each organization has its way in which it transacts its businesses. This is guided by the underlying values, beliefs, its goals, and its genesis. Some organizations have well defined and systematic way of operations that defines the organizational culture. Contrarily, others have no well-defined culture. In this essay, a focus on the organizational culture of Google Inc will be put into perspective. In addition, the Hofstede’s organizational culture analysis framework will be used for the analysis of Google’s organizational culture. This framework has been chosen so that an understanding of the reason why Google has been able to traverse diverse national cultures and still remain productive is so. Google Inc Google Inc commonly referred to as Google, was founded by two Stanford University colleagues, Larry Page and Sergey Brin in 1998. In 2004, the company sold its shares to the public hence becoming a publicly owned company (Elgin, 2008). Google is an American public corporation has a widespread service delivery throughout the world. The company has widespread office locations all across the world. Google is one of the best companies in the world and has a clear goal; they generate income mainly through advertising through its global search engine and affiliate services such as networking, online mapping, office productivity, video sharing, and Gmail services. Google stands out in provision of quality services courtesy of its productive team that are very creative. The company has developed a number of products that ensure that the users get the most correct information, when they need it and get it free of charge. In addition, the company is constantly developing new products to take care of the emerging needs in the society. Google’s has differentiated itself through an organizational culture that promotes creativity and productivity in both leadership and product development. Google’s Organizational Culture The culture of an organization entails the values and the meanings that are common to a group of people that operate under the same organization (Luois, 1980). The assumptions and deeds that are shared by Google Inc as an organization entails their culture. The culture should be made up of the factors that allow internal integration while also allowing external adaptation. The culture defines the efforts that are supposed to be made by the entire group while also stipulating the individual expectations of every member of the group. Google has adopted a very simplistic approach in its organizational culture that allows every member of its organization to feel as part of the team. Sergey Brin at one point noted that maintaining the organization culture is not a goal since the culture will need continuous improvement (Elgin, 2008). Despite this proposition, the Google culture has been founded on the principles of teamwork, creativity, collaborations, and having integrity. The Google mentality is that individuals that join the team develop the capacity to think differently as opposed to their former stations. The culture of the organizations is strictly embedded on the company’s goal, which is “making information accessible to the world.” In its culture, Google endeavors to be realistic and align its organizational culture with the national culture. This cultural diversity makes the company to have the ability to appeal to individuals depending on their cultural background. According to Ogbonna and Harris (2002), the company endeavors to embrace globalization through being sensitive to the needs of the people while upholding values and promoting performance among its employees. Let’s now consider the Hofstede’s organizational culture analysis framework. Hofstede’s Organizational Culture Analysis Framework The influence of national culture on the organizational culture has been clearly elucidated through the Hofstede’s cultural framework. Through his research, Hofstede (1997) observed that various components of culture affect the cultural and behavioral paradigms in organizations. This framework has been based on five cultural dimensions that were elucidated by Hofstede. They are; power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism versus collectivism masculinity versus femininity and long-term perspective versus short-term perspective. Considering the concept of power distance, Hofstede observed that the treatment of inequality across the nations is quite varied; some are known to be contributed by the need for power and wealth. When the power distance between the subordinates and the superiors is so high, then there is a high level of dependency by the subordinates hence it becomes difficult from the subordinates to disagree with the superiors. Contrarily, there is direct disagreement between the superiors and the subordinates when the power distance is too narrow, this is because the dependency levels are minimal (Khastar, Kalhorian, Khalouei, & Maleki, 2011). The second dimension is that of avoidance of uncertainty. This is focused on establishing the strategies that are developed by members of the society in dealing with risks in the future. It is determined through the Uncertainty avoidance index, which is geared towards getting to a given level of certainty especially in situations that presents conflicts. The cultural dimension that has high levels of uncertainty avoidance index people are focused on getting to know about their future, they are structured and highly conform to the expected and required behavior. Societies are different; some embrace collectivism while others embrace individualism. The extent to which the people feel a sense of belonging to others creates a collectivism perspective. In other areas, there are very weak interpersonal relationships; hence, the approach is highly individualistic. For such societies, the concern does not go beyond the individual or their family contrary to the societies that embrace collectivism that forms integrated groups whose individuals are concerned about the group’s interests. The concept of masculinity and femininity is viewed differently across different societies. One key aspect that greatly features is the delegation of responsibilities among members across the gender divide. Some societies allow sharing of values between men and women while others do not. Masculine societies belief in competition and hardships in both materiality as well as in ideas. On the other hand, an attention is given on the injustices that are committed against an individual. Aggressiveness and hardness characterizes the masculine societies while feminine ones depict cooperation and human interactions define progress (Khastar, Kalhorian, Khalouei, & Maleki, 2011). Some societies encourage righteousness so that they can be able to benefit in the long-term. On the other hand, the concerns of the past and now are mainly encouraged by the short-term perspective societies. The future oriented perspective is determined on building values that are highly dynamic in order to promote a sustainable organization. The short-term perspectives are made more stable in order to support the current situations in the organization. Having analyzed all the components of an organizational culture as proposed by Hofstede, this essay will go further to use the framework in developing an analysis of Google Inc. Analysis of Google Inc. Based on Hofstede’s Framework The Hofstede’s framework plays a great role in understanding the influence of the national culture on the organizational culture. Google has diverse use in various countries hence harmonization of a global culture can be quite daunting. The national and regional cultures that influence Google’s organizational culture are persistent and are rarely affected by time. This forms the basis of Google’s adoption of cultural diversity that Brin said that should be constantly advancing (Elgin, 2008). Each of the five dimensions proposed by Hofstede (1997) is going to be used in the analysis. Power Distance The distribution of power between the subordinates and the superiors is an aspect that has been globalized largely. There is no documented way in which the national culture of countries under which Google operates influences the organization’s power distance. The distribution of power at Google is quite spread hence there is a close interaction between the subordinates and the seniors (Manimala, & Wasdani, 2013). There is limited inequality in terms of employee relationship; the little distance that exists can be accounted for by the job position as well as experience. The relationship between the junior and senior employees is quite good. This gives a platform for the subordinates to freely bring forth their issues. In addition, the organization gives its employees the opportunity to think independently, grants them freedom, and allows them to express their creativity. The organization has developed a culture that allows the employees to spend approximately 20% of their time off normal duties to work on issues that they think could be for the benefit of the organization (Maguire, 2010). This culture is common among the regions because it is not affected by the power distance. This has been a culture that has existed in the organization for a longer period. It is through this time dedicated to the employees that Google was able to develop some of their innovative products such as Orkut and AdSense. Since most of the countries have adopted a situation, where the management and subordinates have a close relationship, communication is made very easy hence eliminating destructive bureaucracies. The organizational structure is also a very important aspect that has continued to promote Google’s culture. There is a little disparity between the juniors and the seniors hence creating a flat organizational structure. In this regard, the organization is capable of dealing with new employees in a systematic and friendly approach that makes them not only to feel as part of the team but also to embrace the organizational culture. Team responsibilities are distributed to all the members of a team equally hence, every employee has a sense of belonging to the team. Another intervention that is advanced by the company in an attempt to reduce the power barrier is facilitation of information sharing. The company’s information is shared equally between the top management with the junior staff in most of the countries. This makes the employees to have confidence in the organization while having a sense of belonging. To add to the above mechanisms, there are portals that are used by the employees to give their opinions, views, ideas and propose solutions to various organizational issues. It is therefore quite clear that national cultures do not in any way influence Google’s organizational culture. Individualism versus Collectivism Google considers both individualism as well as collectivism. As proposed by Hofstede, an individualistic society gives credit to individual performance while collectivism is concerned with the collective input of all the individuals in an organization (Tadmor & Tetlock, 2006). At Google, the subordinates as well as the superiors have the leeway to work alone and are provided with incentives and rewards for work done. This forms the basis of the reason every employee is entitled to 20% of their time off routine duties to engage in activities that are of benefit to the organization (Manimala, & Wasdani, 2013). However, despite the emphasis on the individualistic approach, the company also beliefs in team work. Teamwork is highly emphasized by Google but the individual effort within the team or on personal capacity is recognized. Google views its teams from the individualistic perspective. The individual employees are required to demonstrate their creativity and talent in their daily operations in the organization. Just as proposed by Hofstede (1997) that value emanates from an individual, Google holds the same position. The individualistic approach does not in any way deny the input of working together, it requires that individuals within the organization develop personal initiative whether working on a personal capacity or collectively (Wallace, Hunt & Richards, 1999). Google is concerned about the productivity as well as the wellbeing of its employees; this is the reason why the company encourages the employees to learn though teams. Irrespective of the national culture, Google has continued to promote this culture in order to ensure that its employees remain productive at an individual level as well as a group. Google is a company that believes in constant development as part of its organizational culture (Klie, 2010). Members of various teams are obliged to learn through their teams; this is facilitated through regular team events and team meetings. The organization facilitates these events and ensures that much seriousness is given to them. Google goes into supporting individuals in the teams while creating a favorable environment for self-expression while creating a sense of belonging. For example, the company provides support for most of its employee clubs such as Googler Network, Google women Engineers among others. This means that Google does not support either individualism or collectivism society provisions solely; it provides that its employees should balance between both. Masculinity versus Femininity The Google culture is more inclined towards masculinity. Most of the company’s values are masculine because the company derives benefits as well as its employees. Talking about value systems, Hofstede (1997) has observed that the masculine dimension taken by the organization is based on competitiveness, ambition, assertiveness, and the ability to acquire wealth. On the other hand, femininity culture is characterized by an emphasis on quality of life and relationships. Though Google considers the later, the former is much more pronounced. Google upholds masculine values in order to remain competitive in the technologically dynamic industry. This culture has promoted continuous improvement of company’s products and services throughout the world (Steiber & Alänge, 2013). The company has attempted to model its employees to align with this culture, so that the company is capable of reaching its goals. In order to ensure that employees are vibrant in their work, the company has developed motivations such as a good basic salary that is accompanied by both quarterly and annual bonuses. In addition, the company provides its employees with other services such as catering, transportation, day care facilities, entertainment, medical and health services among other benefits. This demonstrates the reason why the culture is highly masculine dominated. Despite the Google culture being majorly masculine, there are aspects of the femininity that are evident in the organization that forms part of the organizational culture. Google through its founders have engaged in corporate social responsibility in support of various community and individuals’ projects. The organization also beliefs in treating others well. This is based on a major proposition within the organization that constantly reminds the employees not to be evil. In addition, company has the role to take care of the consumers of its services by being objective. The highly masculine paradigm that is embraced by Google appears a good strategy to motivate and stir creativity among its workforce while ensuring that the company acquires and retains top talented individuals. Uncertainty Avoidance Index Notwithstanding the level of uncertainty avoidance index in different countries, Google Inc seems not to conform to these statistics. Google has tried as much as possible to uphold freedom of its employees across all nationalities. This has facilitated a sense of self-drive among the employees. As observed by Hofstede (1997), an organization has the mandate of avoiding uncertainties through developing laws and rules that guide it. High uncertainty avoidance index has often been associated with structures and guidelines that stipulate what is expected of the employees. However, for the case of Google, the structures are quite flat, they allows the employees so much freedom to express themselves while still being conscious to the needs of the organization. Unproductivity is highly intolerable. Google believes in taking business risks; this is based on the view that there is a rapid change in the business environment hence taking risks is the only way out to remain competitive. In this regard, Google has the ability to fund any project that demonstrates only a 10% chance of paying off a billion dollar over a long period (Claburn, & Babcock, 2006). In addition, the company is flexible and is likely to invest in other areas beyond its current operations. Despite the company having an open approach to employees and the funding of projects, the sale of its products is guided by policies and guidelines in order to prevent uncertainties. For the employees, the concept of uncertainty avoidance as proposed by Hofstede (1997) is minimal since there are few regulations that employees are required to abide with, such as putting on the identification badges. Despite the view that the levels of breaking rules across the world varies, Google has created a culture where an employee is guided by their own discretion in executing their duties (Jackson, 2012). The employees are quite aware of the offenses that can cost them their jobs hence they respect their jobs. Considering the good remuneration and other gains that come from the company, an employee would exhibit a sense of self-drive in order to avoid committing serious offences that can result to dismissal. Therefore, Google is somehow ignorant of the national culture in the avoidance of uncertainties as it relates to its employees as well as in supporting projects. Long-term Perspective versus Short-term Perspective Google is a long-term minded organization that is focused on its future. The organization has developed the culture of focusing on the long-term. As described by Hofstede (1997), the long-term perspective focusses on the vision of the organization and makes use of the employees to achieve this vision (Ali, 2011). Google has ensured that it has the best talent and ensures that it rewards the talent appropriately in order to retain the employees. This facilitates their focus on the longevity of the organization. There are strategies that the company has developed to ensure that its employees are fully satisfied with what they do at Google, such include the ability of an employee to request the manager to assign them to a specified project in order to expend the work experience. Instead of retrenching its employees, Google usually considers assigning them to other projects. This indicates the organization is concerned about its future as well as that of its employees. An individual that joins the organization will be confident that they will not be retrenched or fired aimlessly. In addition, the decisions made by the organization are based on the long-term welfare of the organization in entirety, including its employees, its shareholders, and other stakeholders. It is therefore quite apparent that the Google culture is inclined more to the long-term perspective. Conclusions An analysis of Google’s culture reveals very limited influence by the national cultures as proposed by Hofstede. Google has tried to maintain a global culture that places emphasis on long-term goals of the organization. Based on this framework, the company has very little focus on uncertainties avoidance due to the belief that the business world is changing very fast hence the need to keep pace with the changing patterns by taking risks. On the other hand, the company has adopted masculine values in order to cope with business dynamisms. It is also apparent that the culture is founded on both individualism as well as collectivism. Finally, there has been adoption of a flat management structure that has facilitated the narrowing of the power distance. This culture seems to be working for the organization since its productivity and employee satisfaction are quite high. References Ali, A. J. (2011). ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE AND THE RISE OF "MADE MEN". Advances in Competitiveness Research, 19(1), 1-3. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/886579089?accountid=45049 Business: Creative tension; googles corporate culture. (2009, Sep 19). The Economist, 392, 74-75. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/223978798?accountid=45049 Claburn, T., & Babcock, C. (2006). Google revealed. InformationWeek, (1103), 34-36,38,40-43. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/229098635?accountid=45049 Elgin, B. (2008). 01 - SERGEY BRIN AND LARRY PAGE: KEEPING THE EDGE AT GOOGLE. New York: The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., The Professional Book Group. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/749219056?accountid=45049 Hofstede, G. (1997). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind New York: McGraw-Hill. Jackson, J. (2012). Google prefers homegrown software. CIO, 26(2) Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1270758978?accountid=45049 Khastar, H., Kalhorian, R., Khalouei, G. A. & Maleki, M. (2011). Levels of analysis and the Hofstede’s theory of cultural differences: The place of ethnic culture in organizations. Retrieved from http://www.ipedr.com/vol11/61-W10017.pdf Klie, S. (2010). Googles innovation imperative. Canadian HR Reporter, 23(16), 14-14,16. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/757071924?accountid=45049 Louis, M.R. (1980). Organizations as culture-bearing milieux. in Organizational Symbolism. Edited by L.R. Pondy, et al. Greenwich, CT: JAI. Maguire, T. (2010). Takeaways from google. Canadian HR Reporter, 23(16), 15. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/757071920?accountid=45049 Manimala, M. J., & Wasdani, K. P. (2013). DISTRIBUTED LEADERSHIP AT GOOGLE: LESSONS FROM THE BILLION-DOLLAR BRAND. Ivey Business Journal Online, , 1. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1370362790?accountid=45049 Nooglers get to grips with the google way. (2011). Human Resource Management International Digest, 19(3), 6-9. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/business/docview/868253821/8714B77D22374C66PQ/16?accountid=45049 Ogbonna, E. & Harris, L. (2002). The Unintended consequences of culture interventions: A study of unexpected outcomes. British Journal of Management. Steiber, A., & Alänge, S. (2013). A corporate system for continuous innovation: The case of google inc. European Journal of Innovation Management, 16(2), 243-264. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1355340562/4E6E71E17EE44B50PQ/3?accountid=45049 Tadmor, C.T. & Tetlock, P.E. (2006). Biculturalism: A Model of the Effects of Second-Culture Exposure on Acculturation and Integrative complexity. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37; 173. Retrieved from http://www.uk.sagepub.com/thomas2e/study/articles/section3/Article67.pdf Wallace, J., Hunt, J. & Richards, C. (1999). The relationship between organizational culture, organizational climate and managerial values. Retrieved from http://www.users.on.net/~biodaemon/Uni/MGMT11109/The%20relationship%20between%20organisational%20culture.pdf Read More