ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE IN GOOGLE INC.

INTRODUCTION
Organizational culture has a strong impact on organization and management, which
emerges from its nature and its content. Organizational culture is defined as a system
of assumptions, values, norms, and attitudes, manifested through symbols which the
members of an organization have developed and adopted through mutual experience
and which help them determine the meaning of the world around them and how to
behave in it. Assumptions, values, norms, and attitudes that the members of an
organization share significantly shape their interpretative schemes. Through
interpretative schemes the members of an organization assign meanings to
occurrences within and outside the organization and understand the reality that
surrounds them (Fiske, 1991).

The behaviour, actions, and interactions of the members of an organization emerge

from the meaning that the reality of that organization has for them. Organizational
culture is a form of collective interpretative scheme shared by the members of an
organization, due to which they assign meanings to occurrences, people, and events
within and outside of the organization in a similar way and treat them similarly
(Schein, 2004). Google is one of the few companies that successfully combine
technological innovation with a strong organizational culture.
CASE STUDY
Google (NASDAQ: GOOG) is one of the best-known and most admired companies
around the world, so much so that “googling” is the term many use to refer to
searching information on the Web. What started out as a student project by two
Stanford University graduates—Larry Page and Sergey Brin—in 1996, 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. Google grew from 10 employees working in
a garage in Palo Alto to 10,000 employees operating around the world by 2009. What
is the formula behind this success?

Google strives to operate based on solid principles that may be traced back to its
founders. In a world crowded with search engines, they were probably the first
company that put users first. Their mission statement summarizes their commitment to
end-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 with 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. They insisted that all their advertisements would be
clearly marked as “sponsored links.” This emphasis on improving user experience and
always putting it before making more money in the short term seems to have been
critical to their success.

Keeping their employees happy is also a value they take to heart. Google created a
unique work environment that attracts, motivates, and retains the best players in the
field. Google was ranked as the number 1 “Best Place to Work For”
by Fortunemagazine in 2007 and number 4 in 2010. This is not surprising if one looks
closer to how Google treats employees. On their Mountain View, California, campus
called the “Googleplex,” employees are treated to free gourmet food options including
sushi bars and espresso stations. In fact, many employees complain that once they
started working for Google, they tend to gain 10 to 15 pounds! Employees have
access to gyms, shower facilities, video games, on-site child care, and doctors. Google
provides 4 months of paternal leave with 75% of full pay and offers $500 for take-out
meals for families with a newborn. These perks create a place where employees feel
that they are treated well and their needs are taken care of. Moreover, they contribute
to the feeling that they are working at a unique and cool place that is different from
everywhere else they may have worked.
In addition, Google encourages employee risk taking and innovation. How is this
done? When a vice president in charge of the company’s advertising system made a
mistake costing the company millions of dollars and apologized for the mistake, she
was commended by Larry Page, who congratulated her for making the mistake and
noting that he would rather run a company where they are moving quickly and doing
too much, as opposed to being too cautious and doing too little. This attitude toward
acting fast and accepting the cost of resulting mistakes as a natural consequence of
working on the cutting edge may explain why the company is performing much ahead
of competitors such as Microsoft and Yahoo! One of the current challenges for
Google is to expand to new fields outside of their Web search engine business. To
promote new ideas, Google encourages all engineers to spend 20% of their time
working on their own ideas.

Google’s culture is reflected in their decision making as well. Decisions at Google are
made in teams. Even the company management is in the hands of a triad: Larry Page
and Sergey Brin hired Eric Schmidt to act as the CEO of the company, and they are
reportedly leading the company by consensus. In other words, this is not a company
where decisions are made by the senior person in charge 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.

Gut feeling has little impact on how decisions are made. In some meetings, people
reportedly are not allowed to say “I think…” but instead must say “the data
suggest….” To facilitate teamwork, employees work in open office environments
where private offices are assigned only to a select few. Even Kai-Fu Lee, the famous
employee whose defection from Microsoft was the target of a lawsuit, did not get his
own office and shared a cubicle with two other employees.

How do they maintain these unique values? In a company emphasizing hiring the
smartest people, it is very likely that they will attract big egos that may be difficult to
work with. 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 and getting to work at Google
is not unlike applying to a college. Candidates may be asked to write essays about
how they will perform their future jobs.

Recently, they targeted potential new employees using billboards featuring brain
teasers directing potential candidates to a Web site where they were subjected to more
brain teasers. Each candidate may be interviewed by as many as eight people on
several occasions. 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. Will this culture survive in the long run? It may be too
early to tell, given that the company was only founded
in 1998. The founders emphasized that their initial public offering (IPO) would not
change their culture and they would not introduce more rules or change the way things
are done in Google to please Wall Street.

ANALYSIS
A number of researchers have conducted a review of the concept of organizational
culture. Walter R. Freytag define the culture of the organization as:

“ ... a distint and shared set of conscious and unconscious assumptions and values
that binds organizational members together and prescribes appropriate patters of
behavior.”[1]
Freytag focuses on the assumptions and values that are consciously or unconsciously
cohesion that binds an organization. Assumptions and values that determine the
behavior patterns of members in the organization.

Other researchers such as Larissa A. Grunig, et al, define organizational culture as

“ ... the sum total of shared values, symbols, meaning, beliefs, assumption, and
expectations that organize and integrate a group of people who work together.”[2]
Definition Grunig et.al. This is similar to the one previously submitted Freytag,
namely that organizational culture is the totality of values, symbols, meanings,
assumptions, and expectations are able to organize a group of people working
together.
Another definition, and this is the definition of a pioneering theory of organizational
culture, proposed by the Edgar H. Schein. Schein states as organizational culture as
focuses on the assumptions and values that are consciously or unconsciously cohesion
that binds an organization. Assumptions and values that determine the behavior
patterns of members in the organization.

Other researchers such as Larissa A. Grunig, et al, define organizational culture as

“.... a pattern of shared basic assumption 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 member as the
correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problem.”[3]
Schein states that organizational culture is a pattern of basic assumptions that are valid
and work within the organization. A series of basic assumptions can be studied by the
members of the organization. Organizational culture can act as a conduit of a solution
to the problem of organization, acts as an adapter to factors outside the organization
that developed, as well as in conducting internal integration of its members.

A more detailed definition of the organizational culture given by Matt Alvesson, that
when talking about the culture of the organization, then

“ ... seems to mean talking about the importance for people of symbolism – of rituals,
myths, stories and legends – and about the interpretation of events, ideas, and
experiences tha are influenced and shaped by the groups within they live. I will also,
however, take organizational culture to include values and assumptions about social
reality ...”[4]
Synthesis of this understanding is the organizational culture is the totality of values,
symbols, meanings, assumptions, and expectations that can provide solutions for
factors outside the organization that developed and able to be the glue for its
members.
 Google also maintains its organizational culture on the simple terms of futuristic and
selfless thought which is to be shared and followed, as rightly put across by one of its
founders Sergey Brin say that he actually don’t think keeping the culture is a goal. I
think improving the culture is. Furthermore, as described by Google’s Chief culture
officer Stacy Savides Sullivan that he would characterize the culture as one that is
team-oriented, very collaborative and encouraging people to think non-traditionally,
different from where they ever worked before–working with integrity and for the good
of the company and for the good of the world, which is tied to our overall mission of
making information accessible to the world” (Following the strategies of the global
market Google understands that the organizational culture should be modified with
accordance to the national culture making it one among the best in the industry.
Which increasing globalization, performance and values of the employees aligned
with the company’s strategy and manipulate culture to achieve the organizational
objective according to (Ogbonna and Harris, 2002).

Organizationally, Google maintains a casual and democratic atmosphere, resulting in

its distinction as a “Flat” company. The company does not boast a large middle
management, and upper management is so hands on, it’s hard to qualify them in a
separate category. Teams are made up of members with equal authority and a certain
level of autonomy is maintained.

This techno-democracy takes a good deal of effort to maintain. In order to secure it, a
sort of bread and circuses environment is created. Google boasts some unique cultural
aspects:

 Local touches like ski gondolas in Zurich, expressing each office's unique location
and personality.
 Dogs, lava lamps, and massage chairs.

 Double rooms (few single offices!) with three or four team members.

 Foozball, darts, assorted video games, pianos, ping pong tables, lap pools, gyms that
include yoga and dance classes.

 Social groups of all kinds, such as meditation classes, film clubs, wine tasting groups,
and salsa dance clubs.

 Health food at a wide variety of cafés, and outdoor seating for sunshine
brainstorming.

 Snacks and drinks to keep Googlers going throughout the day.

The Google culture is probably one of the most positive, influential, all-
encompassing, productivity-inducing environments the world has ever seen. This sort
high praise is typical from industry experts, and there is no shortage of emulation
recommendation in industry magazines.

Etzioni typology of organization are filed: (1) Coercive Organizations; (2) Utilitarian
Organizations; and (3) Normative Organization. Coercive organization is an
organization whose members are trapped in physical and economic reasons that have
to abide by any regulations imposed by the authorities. Utilitiarian organization is an
organization in which the members may be possible to work for a just and fair result is
also a tendency to adhere to some rules are essential in addition to the workers
preparing the norms and rules that protect themselves. Normative Organization is an
organization in which the individual contributed to the commitment because it
considers the organization is the same as the goals themselves.
 Based on the typology proposed by Etizoni organization, then Google including
normative organization because all members of the organization have the same vision
with Google, which is trying to promote innovation and passion to advance the
organization become a leader in the world of dot-com. While the type of corporate
culture by Cameron and Quinn, Handy such as:

1. Cultural Power (Power Culture). A source of strength that highlight core control. there
are few rules or procedures and competitive atmosphere, oriented on the power, and
politically.

2. Cultural Role (Role Culture). Work is controlled by the procedures and regulations.
Role or job description is more important than the people who fill these positions.

3. Cultural Support (Support Culture). The goal is to bring together the right people and
let them do the job. Its influence is based more on the strength of the expert rather
than personal strength or position.

4. Cultural People (People Culture). The individual is the main point, the company is
only there to serve individuals in the company.

Based on these types, then the prevailing corporate culture at Google is People
Culture. This is stated in the statement of Larry Page as CEO of Google, which
recognizes that:

"The people behind the scene which makes Google the company it is today. We hire
people who are smart and diligent, and we prefer the ability over experience.
Although Google employees share the same goals and vision for the company, we
accept all people from different backgrounds and with a diversity of languages,
reflecting the global users we serve. Outside of work, Google employees perform a
variety of hobbies, ranging from cycling to beekeeping, from playing frisbee to dance
the foxtrot. We try to maintain an open culture that is often associated with the
company longer, which is where everyone is an active contributor and feel
comfortable to share ideas and opinions. In our weekly mandatory meetings
("TGIF")-not including those via email or in the cafe-Google employees to ask
questions directly to Larry, Sergey, and other executives about the company's
problems, no matter how many. Our offices and cafes is designed to encourage
interaction between Google employee in the team and other intergroup, as well as to
turn the conversation about work and play.
Google's culture is very informal. Googlers working in groups in a very dense, with
three or four staff to share space with couches and dogs. Corporate virtually invisible
hierarchy and employees who do not wear uniforms.

CONCLUSION
Google created a unique work environment that attracts, motivates, and retains the
best players in the field. Google encourages employee risk taking and innovation.
Google’s culture is reflected in their decision making as well. Decisions at Google are
made in teams. Even the company management is in the hands of a triad: Larry Page
and Sergey Brin hired Eric Schmidt to act as the CEO of the company, and they are
reportedly leading the company by consensus.

Synthesis of understanding organizational culture is the totality of values, symbols,

meanings, assumptions, and expectations that can provide solutions to the growing
factors outside the organization and able to be the glue for its members. Based on the
typology proposed by Etizoni organization, then Google including normative
organization because all members of the organization have the same vision with
Google, which is trying to promote innovation and passion to advance the
organization become a leader in the world of dot-com. While the type of corporate
culture by Cameron and Quinn, Handy the prevailing corporate culture at Google is
People Culture.
REFERENCES
Case Study Google.pdf

Edgar H. Schein, Organizational Culture and Leadership, 3rd Edition (San Fransisco
: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2004) p.17.
Fiske, S.T., Taylor, S.E., (1991). Social cognition. New york: McGraw hill.

Larissa A. Grunig, James E. Grunig, David M. Dozier, Excellent Public Relations and
Effective Organizations: A Study of Communication Management in Three
Countries (New Jersey : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers, 2002) p.282.
Mats Alvesson, Understanding Organizational Culture (London : SAGE Publications
Ltd., 2002) p.3.
Schein E. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership. Tousand Oaks: Sage
publications.

SerrinErdogan and Talya Bauer to accompany Carpenter, M., Bauer, T., & Erdogan,
B. (2009). Principles of management (1st ed.). New
Walter R. Freytag, “Organizational Culture” dalam Kevin R. Murphy and Frank E.
Saal, eds., Psychology in Organizations: Integrating Science and Practice(New Jersey
: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., 1990) p.181.
Weber, Stephan. (n.d). Organizational behaviour - Google corporate culture in
Perspective. Scholarly Paper. Verlag fur Academische.

York: Flat World Knowledge. Based on information from Elgin, B., Hof, R. D., &
Greene, J. (2005, August 8). Case in Point: Google Creates Unique Culture
[1] Walter R. Freytag, “Organizational Culture” in Kevin R. Murphy and Frank E.
Saal, eds., Psychology in Organizations: Integrating Science and Practice (New
Jersey : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., 1990) p.181.
[2] Larissa A. Grunig, James E. Grunig, David M. Dozier, Excellent Public Relations
and Effective Organizations: A Study of Communication Management in Three
Countries (New Jersey : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers, 2002) p.282.
[3] Edgar H. Schein, Organizational Culture and Leadership, 3rd Edition (San
Fransisco : John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2004) p.17.
[4] Mats Alvesson, Understanding Organizational Culture (London : SAGE
Publications Ltd., 2002) p.3.