Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of contents ________________________________________________________________ 3 1.0 Introduction _________________________________________________________________ 5
1.1 Problem statement ________________________________________________________________ 5 1.2 Method __________________________________________________________________________ 6 1.3 Delimitation ______________________________________________________________________ 6
8.0 Discussion _________________________________________________________________ 26 9.0 Conclusion _________________________________________________________________ 27 10.0 Abstract __________________________________________________________________ 29 11.0 Bibliography ______________________________________________________________ 31 12.0 Web pages ________________________________________________________________ 32
4/ 34
Generating such profit in these financially tough times is enviable, but there are challenges ahead for the company. Its massive reliance on a single product, ads on Google.com, makes it vulnerable to change in that particular field, and windows of opportunity such as the one that Google.com thrived on will be seen by others and competed for. Therefore Google needs to stay alert to future challenges in order to stay ahead. A way for the company to face the challenges and keep its competitive advantage is to work with the more intangible elements of the company which cannot be copied as easily, for instance the organizational culture. Organizational culture is an abstract matter which can make it difficult to work with. However, it can also function as a significant resource and give companies an important competitive edge because of its effects on a multitude of areas such as attracting the best employees, ensuring an effective workforce, furthering innovation et cetera. Thus, in order to stay profitable in the future and overcome various challenges, it is advisable to actively work with organizational culture. This train of thought leads us to the following problem statement:
1.1 PROBLEM STATEMENT To what extent does Googles organizational culture play a role in facing future challenges?
5/ 34
1.2 METHOD
The purpose of this thesis is to generate an overview of knowledge on Googles organizational culture in order to produce a conclusion to the thesis statement above. In order for the conclusion to achieve validity the method of knowledge gaining must be scientific, since science seeks to generate knowledge that is objective (Pawar 2010: 4). This view of science is the positivistic view (Pawar 2010: 7), developed by Auguste Comte in an attempt to universalize scientific thinking (Kirkpatrick 1987: 6). Comtes idea was that The laws of mathematics and physics would be extended to the study of society, religion and politics (ibid.). As this paper is on a cultural topic, its conclusions will always be subject to discussion as they cannot be falsified, but it will attempt to minimize subjectivity as much as possible with the use of theorists. The thesis will assume a functionalist perspective on culture, as it will be concerned with the functions that are served by organizational culture. It will examine the most prominent cultural theories chronologically to provide an overview of the development in this field. This will be elaborated in detail in section 4.0 Organizational Culture which is a purely theoretical section. In providing an answer to the above problem statement these different theories will be applied to Googles case. As mentioned, these theories are mostly cultural, but will be supplemented with theories from ethical philosophy and economical theory. The paper will be conceptual, since it is based on the work of others instead of independent empirical data (Pawar 2010: 33-34). The thesis is structured in the following way: It will begin with an introductory company profile, and then go through some challenges for Google based on an analysis by business commentator Niels Lunde. It will then continue into two theoretical sections on organizational culture and corporate social responsibility (CSR) respectively. This will lead to a section on specific cultural initiatives at Google, and what the effects of them have been. This section will include an argument stating that because of Googles monopolistic situation it needs to pay extra attention to innovation, followed by a paragraph on how management can further innovation. Subsequently there will be a section on ethics with a brief introduction to ethical theory and a discussion of Googles concrete ethical situation. The thesis will then provide a critical discussion of its chosen cultural perspective. Finally, it will give a conclusion to the introductory problem statement.
1.3 DELIMITATION
Organizational culture is a broad topic. As a theoretical field it is still young, but it is based on the field of cultural studies which has roots that are thousands of years old. I have chosen theories that I find both relevant for this thesis and descriptive of the entire field. 6/ 34
The thesis will not look into technical matters as the focus will be on culture. Competition will be mentioned, but I will not perform analyses of specific companies because Google has many different competitors on the different fields which it is trying to enter, and because there are technical difficulties to comparing organizational cultures. Also, the thesis will limit itself to the challenges mentioned by Lunde and only focus on the aspects of these which are related to organizational culture. As mentioned, it will be based on the functionalistic perspective. However, a full analysis based on the functionalistic perspective is not possible as the amount of data required is too big and this thesis has no opportunity to examine all artifacts. Therefore the analysis will be based on a few selected artifacts. This concern will be discussed further in the discussion paragraph.
7/ 34
2.1 TIMELINE
The timeline below illustrates Googles history. It shows Googles initiatives, acquisitions and number of pages indexed; how large an amount of web pages can be found through using Google.com.
threat because its platform is closed off for Googles search engine and as Facebook grows larger, it results in an enlargement of information that Google cannot retrieve for its users. Thirdly, there is the recent nomination of Larry Page as CEO. Naming a CEO from within the company is a potential problem, since it can be harder for an inside CEO to see if changes are needed. Page does not have the outside perspective. The fourth challenge is that Google needs to pay attention to competition authorities across the globe. The companys current circumstances are close to a monopoly, and externally imposed regulation may prove very costly and inconvenient. The fifth and last challenge mentioned by Lunde is the cell phone market. The Android system; Googles operating system; have not yet proved itself profitable, and the competition in this market is fierce (politiken.com - a).
stuck on one service only and will be dealt with under the paragraph Managing Organizational Culture.
3.1.3 MANAGEMENT
The third challenge is the nomination of a CEO from within the company. There are benefits to having an inside CEO. One is that the CEO knows the company and its employees well. This includes knowing the lines of authority, unspoken rules, go-to-persons et cetera. Another is that the CEO will not have to spend time and energy on establishing an ethos and winning people over, since he or she is already known by the companys staff. Lastly it promotes motivation, since it lets current employees know that they can make it all the way to the top (Hartley 2010: 83). The disadvantage is that the CEO risks being too influenced by personal emotions and by knowing the history of the company. Since Googles new CEO is a co-founder, that risk might be considered especially high in this case. If the relationship between the CEO and the company is too close and personal it might prevent the CEO from seeing if changes are needed, and what these changes could be (ibid.). According to this, Larry Page faces the challenge of having to manage a culture that he is also a part of and he risks being enamored with status quo since he created that status quo himself. So far he has had a leading position all along, and so he has already played a massive role in the development of Googles organizational 10/ 34
culture, but being in such a fast-changing industry, his history might prove to be a drawback. What the article by Lunde does not mention is the exact management structure. Former CEO Eric Schmidt will stay at Google and handle external matters and act as advisor for the two co-founders, Sergey Brin, cofounder, will handle strategic matters and future plans while Larry Page will handle the daily operational matters. So, when Lunde states that Google will loose the benefits of an outside CEO he does not mention that Eric Schmidt will stay at Google as advisor. In actuality it is similar to tripartition of power, meaning that although it is likely that Page as daily leader has higher influence on the everyday culture, Google will not necessarily loose touch with the outside world. This thesis will deal with this issue by looking at how executives can manage culture in the paragraph Managing Organizational Culture.
adding viruses or spyware to for instance a free game. Therefore Google faces the challenge of getting people to trust its services. When a company wishes to be trusted, it must prove that its services and itself are responsible and credible. One way to achieve this is by being viewed as a moral company (Aaker 2010: 133). This topic will be covered under the paragraph Ethics.
12/ 34
but branding elements will be included intermittently where it is found to be relevant for instance in the Ethics section.
The culture of a group can now be defined as: A pattern of shared basic assumptions that the group learned 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 to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems (Schein 2010: 18) Scheins viewpoint was mainly functionalistic, but he has reservations regarding the perspectives comprehensive view of matters (Schultz 2006: 27). The definition mentions that culture is something that is taught and that it is something which serves a function as a problem solving method. These mentions will be useful when examining concrete initiatives. To obtain a deeper insight into how the concept of organizational culture has evolved, we will now take a look at some historically prominent theories within this subject. Before the 1980s culture was not viewed as something that should be a part of a companys strategic planning. Companies of course had a culture, but managers seldom had an active strategy to improve the company culture, since it was not managerial task (Schultz 2006:15) Sociologist and psychologists had been researching the more intangible matters of an organization since the 1950s, for instance behavioral matters, but it took 30 years for organizational culture to be truly reckoned as an important factor for effectiveness and company growth, and thereby be taken serious by managers (encyclopedia.com - a). One of the first ideas in this conceptual universe was the idea of strong and weak cultures. Inspiration came from studies of Japanese companies with very cohesive organizational worlds. A strong culture existed in companies with a close fit between themselves and their environment, [...] a rich and complex system of shared values, a well-specified and routine set of behavioural rituals and an articulate cultural network (Brooks 2009: 264), while weak cultures displayed the opposite characteristics. Deal and Kennedy indicated that having a strong culture improved a companys performance (Brooks 2009: 264). It was now acknowledged that culture showed itself on the financial bottom line. Schein provides us with a theory on how culture is formed. He suggests that culture is found at three levels, as shown in the model placed to the left.
Figure 3- http://patrickdunn.squarespace.com/occasionalrants/2009/12/17/the-nature-of-the-chasm-is-cultural-not-technical.html - seen May 3 2011
14/ 34
The inner level is our assumptions of the world. This level is not reflected upon, but is simply our ideas of our surroundings. Assumptions influence our cultural values, which is the intermediate level and of which we are aware. The outer level is the manifestation of these cultural values, i.e. when it shows in our behavior for instance traditions or the objects we surround ourselves with. This level is called artifacts. This might be a quite static view of culture, but it has the good quality of showing us that culture comes from somewhere before manifesting itself perceptibly (Brooks 2009: 265). Another view of culture is the structural view; exemplified by the work of Charles Handy. He suggested four different types of culture based on the structural design of the organization. For instance he indicated that small entrepreneurial organizations would often have what he termed power culture: a culture that relies on trust and informal information. This culture is possible because the organization is flexible and free of bureaucracy. The other three cultures are role culture, task culture and person culture, and all are dependent on the structure of the organization (Brooks 2009: 266-267). The main point here is that culture is seen as being dependent on structural factors. Critics of this theory state that it is a rather simplified view of culture because culture is created by many other factors than organizational structure. Also the theory is deemed too deterministic since it states that a company with a certain structure is predestined for a certain type of culture. Along the lines of the structural view comes the view that culture is shaped by the strategic outlook of the manager(s). The outlook restricts how the organization views the world, and through that the organization becomes e.g. conservative, innovative et cetera. Once again, this theory can easily be criticized as being too simple in its categorization, and thereby of limited use (Brooks 2009: 267). Johnson and Scholes provide a theory that tries to illustrate exactly how complex culture is. The figure depicted to the right illustrates the number and diversity of influences on cultural matters. It includes both concrete elements such as control systems and intangible elements such as rituals (Brooks 2009: 268).
Figure 4 -http://www.jamesford.co.uk/methodologies/structure.htm seen april 13 2011
However, the sheer diversity of this model also makes it hard to use functionally, and therefore it might prove unhelpful when working with concrete initiatives.
15/ 34
of the companies in the survey had an organizational culture that worked against efficiency and productivity (Bendell 2009: 320). Another survey shows that many employees are indifferent to the goals of their organization, which affects their work effort negatively (Bendell 2009: 321). Commencement of CSR activities changes that by bringing a non-profit-oriented goal into the company, and often a goal that is more relatable for the employees, making the workplace a source of moral pride instead of merely a source of pay (Urip 2010: 65). Another way for CSR to work in favor of both goals is when it comes to attracting the best employees. Competent employees are often said to be the most important resource of the organization (Torrington 2008: 31), and according to this, being able to attract employees is a competitive advantage (ibid.). Another benefit of CSR is that it boosts the companys external image. By attending to the needs and wants of external stakeholders as well as internal shareholders the reputation of a company improve. A well communicated CSR strategy improves customer equity (Bueble 2009: 14). In relation to Googles case, its users are its customers, but its source of income is its advertisers. By boosting the number of users, there will be more reason for the advertisers to buy ads on Googles products.
17/ 34
This section will briefly recount its theoretical base, and then take a brief look at how Google portrays itself with regards to culture. This will be followed by a look at the employee interest groups at Google as these are concrete initiatives supported by Googles management, and are of importance to the organizational culture. Next it will look at Googles external situation in regards to being a monopoly and how this situation demands extra attention to furthering innovation. That will lead to a paragraph on which type of leadership is required to do that and if Google has that with substantiation in the initiative called Pet Project. It will then offer some critique before concluding on this section.
18/ 34
19/ 34
On the negative side, Google exceeds the boundary between the private sphere and work sphere of the employees and becomes a part of their personal life. This brings a new symbolism into play as the corporation goes from being a place of work to being a way of life. People are not merely employed at Google; they are Googlers. This puts us right in the middle of a current and ongoing discussion on the subject of the need for a division between work life and personal life. When the organization transcends into the private zone, it might cause a situation where people are always at work and lose sight of the border between work life and personal life, which can lead to stress and stress related illnesses (Clutterbuck 2003: 1-2). This is of course bad for the employees, but also bad for the organization for instances given the cost of interviewing and training new employees (Herman 1994: xv) or the factor that stressed employees can detract from the companys ability to reach goals as employee motivation and creativity drops (Clutterbuck 2003: 1-2). Employee groups are artifacts, the top level of Scheins model. They show that social networks are a value. The underlying assumption is that social needs have a place in a work environment an acknowledgement to humans as social beings.
6.4.1 INNOVATION
Innovation has been a buzzword in the world of business for a while, but it is an abstract matter that is hard to define and hard to achieve. Perhaps the most accurate definition is the one that states that innovation is: significant positive change (Berkun 2010: xvii). By this definition, much can be considered innovative as long as it means a significant positive change to someone. An example of innovation could be the story of a Nokia employee in trouble in 1993. Back then, the cell phone was a 20/ 34
recent invention and all cell phones were black and of a standard size and design. This meant that when the Nokia employees gathered in a bar after work, their cell phones quickly got mixed up and they could not tell one from the other. So, one of them got the idea to use car paint to paint each phone a different color which was how customized cell phones started (Rogers 2003: 260). This example demonstrates that innovation does not necessarily consist of major inventions, but can also be minor changes to existing products. Innovation is a quality that many companies strive for. History has given us several examples of how companies have made money by being innovative, for instance Gillette with its invention of the modern razorblade or Amazon with its idea to sell books online. Innovation is advantageous in all industries, but especially so for a company that have so far thrived on being first with new technology (Hartley 2010: 114). Innovation can happen almost by chance, as in the above example of colored cell phones, but instead of just waiting around for that to happen, it is advisable that companies take active steps to promote innovation. These steps must be initiated by management. Googles top management is, as described earlier, divided in three. This is divided as follows: Larry Page, who as CEO handles the daily operations, Sergey Brin, who is in charge of strategic matters and Eric Schmidt who handles external matters and acts as advisor for the other two. Brins and Pages roles are strikingly similar to Douglas McGregors theory on X and Y leaders, which we today often hear spoken of as leaders (Y) vs. managers (X)1. An X leader is a task oriented leader that ensures the job gets done and that subordinates are kept under control. A Y leader is more of a visionary, and here the focus is on inspiration rather than control. The two are not to be seen as different ends of a scale, but rather as different cosmologies altogether opposite assumptions of the world (Schermerhorn 2010: 38). According to McGregor, the Y leaders perception of the world is the more efficient in getting people motivated to work, and in making the workforce efficient because the mind sets are self-fulfilling. If the leader assumes that people can do a job independently, there is a larger chance that this will be true (ibid.) Today, researchers tend to agree that elements from both cosmologies are important in motivating your workforce. People often wish to be under some sort of management, and not be left to control themselves entirely (politiken.com -b). However, being under too strict control can work against the purpose, and create an organizational culture where employees show no initiative and become passive whenever they are not supervised, again as a result of a self-fulfilling prophecy (Schermerhorn 2010: 38).
21/ 34
The management at Google displays a Y leader mentality which can be seen in the fact that Google employees are allowed much self management. Google employees are given 20 per cent of their work time to work on projects of their own choice. This is known as Pet Projects, an initiative that reveals the thought that the employees are capable of self management. The outcome of the Pet Projects belongs legally to Google, but the personal outcome of working with a project of your own choice of course befalls the employee. This initiative was taken to encourage innovation and in general Google does a lot in this respect. It is of course risky for a company to give away control as it makes it harder for said company to control the overall direction (Brooks 2009: 196), but it increases the number of people with a possibility to bring their ideas to life, and so the overall number of ideas being worked with increases (Farmer 2008: 9). Also, this type of leadership is less expensive as it requires less meetings and bureaucracy (ibid.). The Pet Projects is an artifact revealing that capability of self-management is an underlying value. This value shows an underlying assumption that Google employees are independent and that working for yourself is likely to bring better results than working for a company.
6.5 CRITIQUE
It should be noted that many cultural theorists, including Schein, were critical towards the idea that culture could be managed top-down (Brooks 2009: 272). The preceding paragraphs have all been on the topic of managing culture, but it is regarded as implicit that culture is not only influenced by management, but by a multitude of other factors as well, as shown in the model by Johnson and Scholes. This thesis has chosen to focus on matters where management has the ability to exercise its influence, but is aware that external factors play an important role as well.
22/ 34
7.0 ETHICS
As mentioned earlier, Google sees itself as an ethically responsible company (google.com - e). This helps it in attracting resourceful employees (Bueble 2009: 53) and improves its reputation, which adds to the value of the company (Torrington 2008: 31). When a company brands itself as being ethical, it is important that this strategy is fully implemented so that the users do not view it as something done solely for the marketing value (Bueble 2009: 21). This paragraph will use ethical philosophy to examine the validity of Googles moral claims. This examination will include an assessment of the companys situation with regards to it being a monopolist and it will examine how ethics influences customers level of trust.
Consequentialism has been chosen because it works well as a functional definition that allows us to take multiple shareholders into account which also matches the CSR perspective.
to Google, it happened by accident, and the gathered information was deleted, but the companys ethical reputation was damaged. The statement is an artefact displaying that public access to photos is valued highly. This value points to a basic assumptions that information is more important than privacy. Another situation which is likely to be causing damage to Googles ethical brand is the monopolylike conditions it is currently operating under. Google.com is the dominating search engine, with for instance approximately 66 percent of searches in the US (comscore.com - a) and recently Microsoft, one of Googles biggest competitors, filed a complaint to the European Commission on the grounds that Google had become too dominant. Market dominance can be dangerous for a company in different ways. As mentioned in an earlier paragraph, companies that experience near-monopolistic circumstances have a tendency to become complacent after a while, thus creating opportunities for other companies to take over. Another way it can be damaging for companies is with respect to the companys brand. In the section on CSR it was established that implementing a CSR strategy will improve a companys reputation, but if that strategy is not followed through properly, it will instead damage the reputation as consumers will see it as merely a marketing strategy (Bueble 2009: 21). An example of the ethical ambivalence of this topic will now be described. In 2010 Google was close to being declared a monopoly by the French government as a result of a lawsuit. Google was sued by the French company Navx that sells access to information about where the French police are likely to have radar traps. Google held this business to be unethical, and decided to remove the companys ads from Google.com. Navx then lost much of its sales, and responded by taking legal action against Google. Navx assertion was that Google held a dominant market position and was misusing it. The French court seemed to agree that Google held a dominant market position and this meant that it was obliged to bring Navx ads and not doing so would be considered discriminatory action. However, the case ended in a settlement, where Google promised to clarify its rules and regulations towards advertisers and so it was never declared a monopoly (wallstreetjournaldigitalnetwork.com - c). This sequence of events is an artifact showing that Google value its own ethics over customers. This value shows a basic assumption that Googles ethics are correct. According to the ethical definition of this paper, the aspect of Navx business that allows people to avoid speeding traps would likely be unethical as the benefit is avoiding a fine while the disadvantage may be bodily harm or deathly injury. This conclusion can only be likely since we cannot exclude the possibility that no extra harm has come from avoiding speed traps, in which case Navx product would bring more benefit than disadvantage. 25/ 34
8.0 DISCUSSION
Earlier it was stated that this thesis would be based on a functionalistic perspective meaning that it would presume that the features of organizational culture serves different functions in the company. This was a choice between three perspectives which are central in the cultural debate. These three are rationalism, functionalism and symbolism (Schultz 2006: 19) Rationalism is based on the idea that the organization functions like a machine. Here it is believed that organizational culture works as a means to achieve a goal and that it is one variable among others. Culture is in the shared values of the organization, and subcultures are viewed as often being counterproductive with regards to reaching the goal. Functionalism is described earlier. It is based on the idea that the organization functions like an organism. This perspective views culture in terms of the functions served by culture, and culture is not one variable among others, but several variables pervading the entire organization and thus putting its mark on all the other factors. Culture is a way to generate consensus and create integration. Subcultures serve smaller functions that do not need to be served on an overall level. The last perspective is symbolism. Here culture is viewed as something actively generated by human, as opposed to either a machine or an organism. Culture is a type of language generating common understanding, and subcultures are, sometimes competing, dialects (Schultz 2006: 20-21). Although this thesis has already chosen a perspective it now seeks to recognize the fact that a different choice of perspective would have affected the outcome of the analysis. It was regarded that the aim of the thesis, to examine the extent to which cultural elements can play/plays a role in facing the challenges ahead of Google, could best be answered on the basis of the functionalistic perspective. It can now be concluded that there are flaws to this choice. The functionalistic perspective requires examining a large amount of data on three levels, where the symbolic perspective is more holistic in its approach and sees meaning in individual data from the beginning of the analysis (Schultz 2006: 120). This thesis has only examined a limited number of artifacts, such as employee interest groups or
26/ 34
leadership style, and so it cannot define itself as a methodically composed cultural functionalistic thesis. Another problem with functionalism is the transference of meaning from one cultural level to the next. The artifacts themselves are tangible or easily observable, whereas the value and assumption level require the thesis to draw conclusions that involve some conjecture. No matter how rational the observer, the conjectures will exist. This is a critique point of this thesis and of cultural theory in general that its conclusions are not falsifiable. However, this does not equal complete randomness in conclusions. They are built on observations, secondary empirical data and theorists which ensure them to be as credible as possible.
9.0 CONCLUSION
In the introduction we proposed the following problem statement:
To what extent does Googles organizational culture play a role in facing future challenges?
All the preceding sections have contributed to providing answers to this problem. We have first established some of the challenges that lie ahead for Google. Then it was established what organizational culture is and what theories have characterized the field. Simultaneously, it was ascertained that organizational culture does influence organizational performance. This has also been documented throughout the thesis with secondary data. Next, it was examined whether or not organizational culture was even suitable for active management, and it was found that even though culture is difficult to manage it can be influenced positively by leadership style or initiatives such as employee interest groups. The ethical perspective showed us that moral matters influence organizational culture and staff morale, and therefore is an important part of the organizations culture. On the basis of the theoretical background and concrete analysis it can be ascertained that Googles organizational culture plays a role in certain aspects of the organizations resources. It impacts work force efficiency and in this way it helps the organization meet its challenges. It also impacts the organizations capability to be innovative in a positive way. For the organizational culture to be a resource it is important that the company attends to ethical matters as well. As a company claiming to 27/ 34
be ethical, it is crucial that Google acts accordingly as doing otherwise will affect both internal and external stakeholders adversely, and as a result lessen the positive effect created by its internal culture.
28/ 34
10.0 ABSTRACT
This thesis Google and the Challenges Ahead is a case study of Google in relation to using organizational culture as a resource. It takes its point of departure in the following problem statement:
To which extent does Googles organizational culture play a role in facing future challenges?
It is written to examine to which extent culture plays a role in organizational performance, and uses Google as a case because of the companys impressive growth rate and its reputation as a company implementing numerous cultural initiatives. The thesis is structured along five challenges that Google either already faces or will likely face in the near future, and focuses on the cultural aspects of these challenges. That is, aspects where the organizational culture can play a role in overcoming the challenge. The theoretical basis of the thesis is established to be the functional perspective due to the concrete nature of the study. A number of prominent cultural theories pertaining organizational culture is then reviewed in chronological order to form a basis for the analysis. This exposition includes a review of CSR theories which is relevant as Google displays itself as an ethically correct company. All of the above form the basis of the concrete analysis of Google. Here the theoretical base is briefly recounted and Googles self image is demonstrated by use of examples in a short paragraph. Then a concrete example is examined, namely the employee interest groups at Google. The effects of the groups is explored and it is found that the groups can further employee job satisfaction, work force efficiency and employee loyalty. On the negative side it is found that the groups risk transcending the boundaries between work and personal life and in doing so stressing the employees. Then it is determined that Googles situation as a near-monopoly gives reason for the company to pay extra attention to innovation. Googles management is examined to determine the leadership style which is found to have focus on self management, and it is established that Googles leadership style is effective with regards to achieving an innovative culture. It is simultaneously established that most people prefer to be under some management, and so Google should ensure to maintain some guidelines. Next, the thesis offer some critique of the above-mentioned conclusions.
29/ 34
Then it is determined which ethical theory the thesis will have as its standard, before examining some of Googles actions in the moral domain. The specific topics examined are tax politics, privacy politics and market dominance politics. It is shown that ethical implications are hard to judge and that not all Googles actions live up to their informal motto Dont be evil. Afterwards there is a discussion section where the choice of cultural perspective is discussed in a critical manner. Finally, it is concluded that Googles organizational culture and ethics is a positive resource in facing the organizations challenges, but that it is a complex matter.
30/ 34
11.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Aaker, David A.; Building Strong Brands; 2010, 2. Bendell, Jem et al; The Corporate Responsibility Movement; 2009; Greenleaf Publishing Limited 3. Berkun, Scott; The Myths of Innovation; 2010; OReilly Media Inc. 4. Brooks, Ian; Organisational Behaviour; 2009; Fourth edition; Pearson Education Limited 5. Bueble, Elena; Corporate Social Responsibility: CSR Communication as an Instrument to Comsumer-Relationship Marketing; 2009; GRIN Verlag 6. Clutterbuck, David, Managing the Work-Life Balance; 2003; CIPD Publishing 7. Driver, Julia; Ethics: The Fundamentals; 2006; Wiley-Blackwell 8. Darwall, Stephen; Consequentialism; 2003; Wiley-Blackwell 9. Farmer, Neil; The Invisible Organization; 2008; Gower Publishing 10. Hartley, Robert F; Management Mistakes and successes; 2010; John Wiley and Sons 11. Herman, Susan J.; Hiring Right: a practical guide; 1994, Sage 12. Kirkpatrick, George R. et al; Introduction to Critical Sociology; 1987; Ardent Media 13. Mankiw, Gregory N.; Principles of Microeconomics; 2008; Fifth edition; Cengage Learning 14. May, Steven K, George Cheney and Juliet Roper; The Debate over Corporate Social Responsibility; 2007; Oxford University Press 15. Morrison, Janet; The International Business Environment; 2006; Second edition; Palgrave Macmillan 16. Pawar, Badrinaryan Shankar and Mathukutty M. Monipally; Academic Writing; 2010; Sage Publications 17. Rogers, Everett M.; Diffusion of Innovations; 2003; Fifth edition; Simon and Schuster 18. Schein, Edgar H.; Organizational Culture and Leadership; 2010; Fourth edition; John Wiley and Sons 31/ 34
19. Schermerhorn Jr., John R; Management; 2010; Eleventh edition; John Wiley and Sons 20. Schultz, Majken; Kultur i organisationer; 2006; Handelshjskolens forlag 21. Scott, Virginia A.; Google; 2008; Greenwood Publishing Group 22. Torrington, Derek et al; Human Resource Management; 2008; Seventh edition Pearson Education 23. Urip, Sri; CSR Strategies; 2010; John Wiley and Sons 24. Zook, Chris; Beyond the Core: Expand Your Market Without Abandoning Your Roots; 2004; Harvard Business Press
4. Cnn.com a. Cnnmoney.com Technology; Goldman, David; July 15. 2010; Googles profit rises but falls short of estimates; http://money.cnn.com/2010/07/15/technology/google_earnings/index.htm; seen April 12. 2011 5. Comscore.com a. Comscore.com press release; November 18 2010; comScore Releases October 2010 U.S. Search engine Rankings; http://www.comscore.com/Press_Events/Press_Releases/2010/11/comScore_Releases_Octo ber_2010_U.S._Search_Engine_Rankings; seen April 25. 2011 6. Encyclopedia.com a. Encyclopedia.com Encyclopedia of Management Organizational culture; http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Corporate_culture.aspx; seen March 28. 2011 7. Google.com a. Google.com Google History; http://www.google.com/corporate/history.html; seen April 28. 2011 b. Google.com Investor Relations; http://investor.google.com/financial/tables.html; seen April 26. 2011 c. Google.com Our Philosophy ; http://www.google.com/corporate/tenthings.html; seen April 20. 2011 d. Google.com The Google Culture; http://www.google.com/corporate/culture.html; seen April 20. 2011 e. Google.com Investor Relations; http://investor.google.com/corporate/code-ofconduct.html; seen April 17. 2011 8. Mashable.com a. Mashable.com Social Media; Elliot, Amy-Mae; June 19. 2010; 10 Fun Facts You Didnt Know About Google; http://mashable.com/2010/06/19/10-google-facts/; seen April 2. 2011 33/ 34
9. Politiken.com a. Politiken.com Blogs; Lunde, Niels; April 6. 2011; Ny topchef hos Google: Her er Larry Page udfordringer; http://blog.politiken.dk/lunde/2011/04/06/ny-topchef-hosgoogle-her-er-larry-page-udfordringer/; seen April 10. 2011 b. Politiken.com Blogs; Lunde, Niels; April 5. 2011; Vi trives med hierarkisk virksomhedsstruktur; http://blog.politiken.dk/lunde/2011/04/05/vi-trives-medhierarkisk-virksomhedsstruktur/; seen April 10. 2011 10. Wallstreetjournaldigitialnetwork.com a. Allthingsdigital.com digital daily; Paczkowski, John; April 27. 2011; Google to Claim Worlds biggest App Store Title From Apple in Five Months; http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20110427/google-to-claim-worlds-biggest-app-store-titlefrom-apple-in-five-months/?mod=ATD_rss; seen April 29. 2011 b. Marketwatch.com; Letzing, John; October 22, 2010; Wary of Google Street View? Move, CEO says; http://www.marketwatch.com/story/wary-of-google-street-view-moveceo-says-2010-10-22; seen April 28. 2011 c. Wallstreetjournal.com Technology; Varela, Thomas; October 28. 2010; Google Settles Navx Case With French Agency; http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303362404575580282968250468.html; seen April 26. 2011
34/ 34