Organizational Culture of The Google

Company
This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work
written by our professional essay writers.

During last few years many organization leaders, manager and scholars have shown
enthusiastic interest in understanding the role and nature of the organizational
culture. One of the main causes for rise in interest is, to understand the
organizational culture was to understand how it affects the organization changes:
for a time it was seen as secret obstacle to success (Fulop & Linstead, 2004).
According to Martin (1992), the understanding of the organizational culture is to
help understand organizational life more, that's why understanding the
organizational life is important because the organizational culture has influence the
company's performance (Denison, 1990; Kotter & Heskett, 1992; Truskie, 1999; &
Schein, 2004). The main aim of this essay is to provide, importance of
understanding the organizational culture, mission and vision of the Google along
with its culture strategy. In addition, the essay will discuss in depth of the
company's management function in culture and its effectiveness, the essay will also
discuss the issues related with the case of Google and in last providing the
recommendation to a company. The information is mainly based on the secondary
data such as, information from the internet, books and journal articles. The essay
will first provide the background of the Google Company and then it will discuss how
the company deals with culture.

Google was first founded in 1988 by two PhD students, Sergey Brin and Larry Page
from Stanford University. They developed an innovative way of searching the
internets information later on it grew very quickly. Hence, it has extraordinary
growth and success in the market place (Towers, 2006). In 2005, the company had a
turnover of $5 billion and hence worth more then Ford and General Motors
combined (Towers, 2006). Company mission is to organize the worlds information
and make it universal accessible and useful (Google, 2010). As a business, Google
generates most of the revenue from advertising by offering advertisers the
measurable and cost effective advertise. It also develops the web application such
as Gmail, Google calendar and Google docs to help the people to share information
and communicate more easily (Google, 2010). Along with this company also
provides the facility and services of Google maps and YouTube to find the location
and watch videos from the mobiles (Google, 2010). Because of all this offerings and
benefits, it has reached to tremendous success. Company has maintained its same
old culture as it was in 1998, company says that they have maintained a small
company feel. During the lunchtime, all the employees eat in office caf, by eating
on the same table where they sit from the opening and enjoy the conversation with
Googlers from different team (Google, 2010). Company believes that the innovation
depends on the comfortable of everyone by sharing ideas and views (Google, 2010).
Therefore, the four cornerstone of Google culture are mission, innovation, fun and
reward (Towers, 2006).

In addition, the essay will discuss the importance of understanding the

organizational culture. It is very necessary to understand what is mean by
organizational culture before discussing the importance of culture. The culture of
the organization refers to the unique configuration of norms, values, beliefs way of
behaving and so on that characterize the manner in which groups and individuals
combine to get things done (Fulop & Linstead, 2004 pg.99). According to Anthony
(1994), the term culture is conceptual and general concept that is used, to include
many aspects of the organization. Therefore, many researches have carried out,
how culture is important to organization, to find out the link between the
organizational effectiveness and culture (Denison, 1990; Kotter & Heskett, 1994). As
the cultures exist within all the organization, it makes sense that some organization
has better culture then other; however, according to Kotter and Heskett (1992), the
successful culture is often thought, when the employee's goals are aligned to the
organizational goals.

Further, looking toward one of the element of culture, that is Leadership. leaders
can exert a powerful influence on the culture of their organization, especially if they
are the founders (Fulop & Linstead, 2004). In case of Google, Sergey Brin and Larry
Page is the founder of the company and therefore they act as a leader for the
company by role modeling, coaching, mentoring and teaching the criteria for
selection and rewards. Moreover leadership is defined as "the ability to develop and
articulate a vision of the future for the organization or a unit of the organization, to
motivate others to buy into that vision and to get it implemented" (Rice & Beamish,
2008). Kotter argues that leadership involved three key skills such as setting
direction for the organization, aligning the people with the direction and motivating
and empowering people (Rice & Beamish, 2008 pg.384). In case of Google, Sergey
Brin and Larry Page have got all these three skills. They have set the direction by
having a mission to make information accessible to the world, aligning the
employees with the direction by motivating and empowering employees. Google
has created successful and creative employee environment that is visible
manifestation of the culture, by providing the services like gym, pool tables,
massage rooms, washing machine, video games and table tennis (Towers, 2006).
Along with these facilities, company also provides free snack such as carrot,
yoghurt, fresh fruits, gummy bears and M&Ms, it has also got reputable cafeteria
providing coffee. Therefore Google has gone beyond basic physical needs to their
employees such as financial advisor, doctors, dentists and massage therapist to get
free from the stress of the work (Towers, 2006). For this reason, the company
created an organizational culture that is of high levels of sociability. In addition,
looking towards the motivational issue that has been identified by some of the
authors, one of the issue is described by Kanter (1989), he believes that motivation
is linked with culture with the five sources of motivation such as mission, agenda
control, and share of value creation, learning and reputation (Towers, 2006). Looking
towards the Kanter (1989), theory link of motivation to the culture the employees
has very high level of motivation in the company.

For example, once the programming engineer was married in the morning and
before going on his honeymoon in evening he work in afternoon in his office to
make some changes to his project (Towers, 2006). This shows how the employee in
the company is motivated to work for the company. Hence, the high level of
motivation is not because of working environment and financial rewards from the
company, if the Maslow's hierarchy needs is measured, the company has gone
beyond the physiological, safety, social and esteem needs. However, the unity
between the employees and Google is further, improved by the empowerment of its
employees and encouraging innovation (Towers, 2006). The Google has got 20%
rule, in which the employees can spent time on whatever project they like, if the
project becomes popular the employee can continue concentrating on that project
as their main task (Towers, 2006). This 20% rule helps the employee to think
outside of the box for innovating new products and this helps the Google to get
success (Towers, 2006). Because of 20% rule the Google employee can spend 20%
of their time in whatever project they like (Bytes, 2005). Google give the employee's
time to innovate new products and therefore the employees are more concerned in
the organization. Therefore, it can be said that the structure of the Google is flat, as
it provides their employees high responsibility to facilitate innovation (Towers,
2006). According to Edwards (2005), the empowerment of work to the employees
and providing an opportunity to take decision and act upon those decision has
provided Google employees to do innovate and do things quicker.

Looking towards the Denison (1990), views about culture, he believes that culture is
integrated with the four factors such as involvement, consistency, adaptability and
mission. The decision are made by involving the employees in the work, consistency
implies the values and expectation are united in the organization, and hence the
organization should be able to adopt its behavior, system and structure when ever it
is needed, and in last the mission refers to existence of shared definition of purpose
of the organization (Towers, 2006). Later Truskie (1999), refers to high performance
organization culture that refers to the Denison (1990), work for the effectiveness of
organizational culture. Truskie (1999), have got similarity with the work of Denison
(1990), and he shows that four key elements exists for integrating the balance
culture that is cooperation, consistency, achievement and inspiration (Tower, 2008).
Truskie (1990), explains the four elements in different institutional groups, such as
family, social institutions, scientific institutions and law enforcement. He believes
that if these four elements combine together then the organizational culture can be
more enriched. Truskie (1990), propose element of family with sharing and caring it
means teamwork, this is summaries with the cooperation. Social institution refers to
development and human growth this forms the inspiring part of model presented.
Truskie sums up advancement and achievement that is positive element of scientific
institution. And finally the law enforcement has efficiency and consistency this is
summarized in the word consistency. Therefore, Truskie (1990), work is similar to
Denison (1990), works (Tower, 2008). Further what Truskie (1999), refers to mission
and Denison (1990) as inspiration, the employees in the Google truly believes that
they are making difference to the world and the mission of the company is to
organize the worlds information and make it accessible to the world (Towers, 2006).
Therefore, the employees of Google have perceptive belief in the company's
mission and the opportunities they have at Google (Nelson & Quirk, 2005). This
belief is because of high level of motivation in the employees, and the employees
have strong belief because the values of the employees are aligned to that of the
company (Towers, 2006).

Moreover the Kanter (1989), theory of linking motivation to culture include five
forces mention above in the essay are linked with Denison (1990), and Truskie
(1999), four forces and hence all these forces focus upon same universal ideas.
Therefore, there is link between the motivation and culture, as the culture that is
strongly integrated will frequently result in motivated employees (Towers, 2006).
However, the Kotter (1992), and Heskett (1992), have recognized the idea of
"culture fit". The idea of culture fit is necessary to discuss the culture and
performance because there is not "one best" culture (Towers, 2006). The best the
culture fits, the best the organization will perform (Schein, 2004). Therefore, the
culture is used as a mean to fix solution for organization to enhance its performance
(Alvesson, 2002). Moreover, there are many studies carried out, one of is by Kotter
& Heskett (1992), which describes the relationship between the organizational
culture and its performance. The study shows that it is very important for the
organization to understand its culture because the organizational culture has
significant impact on organization long-term economic performance and therefore,
it becomes more significant in the success and failure of the organization (Kotter &
Heskett, 1992). Kotter and Heskett (1992), talks about the united culture, they say
that the culture where the employees goals are aligned to that of the organizational
culture are often thought as successful culture. In relation of link between culture
and performance, Kotter and Heskett (1992), describe that there is link between
culture and organizational culture they argues that organization should have high
level of motivation in order to enhance the organization (Tower, 2008). In case of
Google, the employee's objectives are aligned with the company and this is the
reason of success for the company. The founder of the company Sergey Brin and
Larry Page have missionary keenness with regard to organize the worlds information
and make is assessable to the world this permeates the organizational culture
enthusing others in the Google mission, this mission is the center strength of the
company (Edwards, 2005). Therefore, the employees of Google have a social bond
to combine together in the company's mission to make the world information
accessible.

Taking an example of India, will show how the organization has maintained culture.
The company has roaming work environment that has lava lamps, massage chairs
and beanbags chairs and along with this, it has the play area for football (Scott,
2008). Nevertheless the company was influenced by the Indian culture, but it has
understand it properly and hence along with decors it is now also providing the free
food such as chaat, Pringles, local fried snacks and Indian curries in the cafeteria
(Scott, 2008). Further, it helps the company to easily transfer the Google culture in
India because many of the Googlers working in the Mountain View Googleplex, were
returned to India for further research in its new research center (Scott, 2008). Along
with this, the company also provided the salary around three times more than its
competitor, in addition the company believes that if the Googlers are well fed,
relaxed, and comfortable then innovation and creativity are nurtured (Scott, 2008).

Once on the interview Lary and Sergery were asked if they were following any
particular management or they made if up by themselves, they responded, "We try
to use elements from different companies, but a lot is seat of your pants stuff"
(Scott, 2008). Google has very few layer of management and hence it is a flat
organization, however the flat organization works better in environments that need
to quickly produce prototypes, test them and then decide whether to expand or
reject them (Scott, 2008). Google has the group culture and hence all the decision
involves the group and after a long discussion, the group of 15 or 20 makes the
decision, while the founder and CEO of the company makes the major decisions
(Scott, 2008). However, the company has good strategy of involving the group
members in the decision and hence it helps the company to reduce the numbers of
managers (Scott, 2008). In addition, when the director of human resources of the
company Sullivan was asked to characterize the culture of the Google, she
responded that it is team oriented and collaborative (Scott, 2008). She says that the
people are motivated to think nontraditionally, working with integrity for benefit of
the company and good for the world (Scott, 2008). Moreover, this is the overall
mission of the company to make information accessible to the world. Therefore, this
characteristic of the company helps Google to become innovative and productive
think tanks in the world (Scott, 2008).

Further, looking towards the theory of Martin (1992), he says the cultures where
employee's values are aligned to the organizational goals works more effective,
therefore he refers to culture where workers are unified (Tower, 2008). He
distinguish the essential values and assumptions are shared and performed by all
members of the culture, therefore the members know what they do and why the do.
In relation to the integrated culture he proposes two viewpoint of organizational
culture. First is 'fragmented' while there is little agreement among workers and
organizational culture, and secondly 'differentiated' while the organizational values
are merely embraced in parts of the organization (Tower, 2008). Further, Martin
(1992), views are similar with the cultural model anticipated by Goffee and Jones
(1996), simplifying culture into two proportions, sociability and solidarity creating
matrix using these proportions. "This proportion consists of four culture, that is
'fragmented' (low sociability and low solidarity), 'mercenary' (high sociability and
low solidarity), 'networked' (high solidarity and low sociability) and lastly, cultures in
which employees have a high level of sociability and solidarity are referred to as
'communal' cultures" (Tower, 2008). Therefore within communal cultures workers
get the job done effectively and efficiently. Hence in both the model prepared by
Martin (1992), and Goffee and Jones (1996), has likeness because the model
distinguish that organizational culture do exist where employees values are united
to the organization and where communication within the organization is effective
(Tower, 2008). Further, organization still faces the problem of culture because every
organization has subculture, where the subcultures often have different set of
values to that of the corporate culture. Martin (1992), express this type of culture as
'differentiated' and therefore, this type of culture do not perform well because of
they are contradict to the organization culture (Tower, 2008). Moreover, even
organizations with strong culture have subculture but they always look for
emphasizing its culture upon subcultures in an effort to discourage oppose and
effort to encourage organizational cohesion (Tower, 2008). In addition, this is
necessary because the organizations which are doing well in the marketplace
generally have the corporate cultures cohesive with the subcultures (Anthony,
1994).

In case of Google, it provides free movies to their employees and their families, free
ski holidays, and because of this social excursion it has created a social relationship
with the employees. Along with this Google also provides free 25 days holidays in a
year, nursery care for their children and sports facilities, this helps the company to
encourage its employees to work hard and play hard (Tower, 2008). Because of
these fringe benefits provided by the Google to its employees help the company to
create a social cohesion between the employees and this is very crucial for the
effectiveness of the organization. Further, it can be said that using the matrix of
Goffee and Jones (1996), Google has created a social bond with its employees,
which results in high level of sociability (Tower, 2008).

Further, the Google has one of the most brilliant employees and therefore it helps
the company to support innovation and empowerment. According to Cohn (2005),
company is very careful in enrollment and selecting the right employees for the
company has help Google to maintain its culture. As the founders Brin and Page are
very intelligent they are able to recruit the best employees by playing a key role in
the selection process, that are best fitted in the Google's culture (Tower, 2008).
Further, the policies of Google are different from other organization because the
work experience counts for not as much of the educational background. According
to Day (2005), the company does not employ employees who have worked for more
than two years out of University. But further looking towards these policies of the
company it can be argued that experience is must for the employees other than
theoretical knowledge, because there are many organization where experience is
needed along with the theoretical knowledge. However, the companies don't
believe this and therefore it can also influence Google in future. Moreover, the
Google cultures attract young and creative employees and facilitate them to
promote and share ideas, this helps Company to continually increase innovation
(Tower, 2008). For example, ones the operation director of the company Brian Reid
was fired unfairly out of the company, because he was not well-matched with the
company's culture that is youth and energy (Lohse, 2004). However, looking to this
issue it can also be argued nevertheless it is the policies of the company but still
this can be considered as an unethical practice.

Inside Googles Culture of Success and

Employee Happiness
Its pretty well documented that Google has a unique culture. Its not the typical corporate culture. In

fact, just by looking at pictures inside the Googleplex, you can see that it looks more like an adult

playground, not a place for work.

But Googles success can be attributed to this culture. Google has people whos sole job is to keep

employees happy and maintain productivity. It may sound too controlling to some, but its how this

world-changing organization operates.

So can Googles culture teach us anything?

Yes.

Google bases nearly everything off data, and while some of whats below may work best only for

Google, there are surely other areas that can work for all companies, regardless of size.

When learning about Googles culture, one of the people you need to know of is Laszlo Bock. He is

the head of People Operations, known by many companies as Human Resources. People

operations are where science and human resources intersect. And its what keeps Google a top

performing company.

In this post well examine how Google recruits, develops, and retains the employees. Lets get

started.
How Google Hires
Each year, Google gets over 2.5 million applicants. Thats equal to 6,849 per day and about 5 per

minute and Google reviews each one. Don Dodge, a current Google employee shows how

thorough Google is with each applicant. Whats not important is the logistics of each hire, but why

they hire this way and what we can learn from it. Because its the people that make Google what they

are today.

When you get interviewed at Google, youll receive questions like:

How many golf balls can fit in a school bus?

There are 8 balls. Seven of them weigh the same, but one is heavier. Using a balance scale, how do

you find the heavier ball with just two weighings?

You are shrunk to the height of a nickel and your mass is proportionally reduced so as to maintain

your original density. You are then thrown into an empty glass blender. The blades will start moving

in 60 seconds. What do you do?

Google says the answer isnt as important as your thought process and how you think under

pressure. The worst possible answer would be a non-answer. Quickly saying I dont know wont get

you a job at Google.

These interview questions may seem unnecessary to some, but they are one method Google uses

to filter and find the smartest, most thoughtful candidates. If you want to run an extraordinary

company, you need to hire extraordinary people. And to do that, you need to be very good at

hiring and firing.

Update: Bock has announced that Google is no longer throwing brain teasers at their interviewees,

calling them a complete waste of time that only make the interviewer feel smarter. Google now

relies on more on structured behavioral interviews. They ask the interviewee a question like give

me an example of a time when you solved an analytically difficult problem. The interviewer can then

see how the applicant interacted with a real world situation as well as find out what the interviewee

finds difficult. When looking for leaders, Google tries to hire those who have a track record of

consistency.

Other times, Google recruits employees by acqui-hiring. A few of the well-known cases have been

Milk (which got Kevin Rose), Meebo (which got Seth Sternberg and others), and Slide (which got

Max Levchin who has since departed). Sometimes the best talent isnt out there looking for a job;

theyre already locked up with other projects.

This is how Google hires people. Part of how it attracts, retains, and keeps employees happy is by

having a great culture with awesome perks. Lets get into that now.

Perks:
First, lets look at the perks of being a Google employee:
 Free breakfast, lunch, and dinner. The organic food is chef-prepared

Free health and dental

Free haircuts

Free dry cleaning

Subsidized massages

Gyms and swimming pools

Hybrid car subsidies

Nap pods

Video games, foosball, ping pong

On-site physicians

Death Benefits

Obviously, all these perks come at a cost for Google. But so does employee dissatisfaction and high

turnover. There is a lot of competition for talent in Silicon Valley (and around the globe for that

matter) and when you can retain your employees, it means less time and money spent recruiting.

This culture has paid off for Google, as they consistently rank among the best places to work.

Theyve lost hundreds of employees to Facebook and many others who have started VC

firms or their own startups. Its one of the consequences of hiring smart, talented, and ambitious

people. No matter how good the culture is, many of them receive enticing offers from other places or

wish to start their own ventures.

A Culture Built on Qualitative and Quantitative Data

Human resources, or People Operations, is a science at Google. Theyre always testing to find ways

to optimize their people, both in terms of happiness and performance. In fact, almost everything

Google does is based off data. So it should come as no surprise that Google uses all sorts of data to

gauge employees and improve their productivity.

Lets look into what Prasad Setty and his People Analytics team at Google have discovered:

Lunch Lines: You know by now that Google offers free meals and snacks to all of its employees. So

whats the optimal lunch line? At what point is it too long where people waste time and too short
where people dont get to meet anyone new? Whats the prime happy medium? According to Google

its about three to four minutes. Any longer and they may waste time, any shorter and they dont get

to meet new people.

Lunch Tables: If you want employees to meet each other, make the tables long. This will expose

them to more people who they can get to know.

Paid Time Off for New Mothers: Google found that women were leaving the company at twice the

rate of everyone else. In particular, this occurred with new mothers. Googles maternity leave plan

was 12 weeks paid time off. Laszlo Bock changed the plan so new mothers could get 5 months paid

time off with full pay and benefits. They were allowed to split this time up however they want (i.e.

taking a few days off before expecting). The result after the change in policy? A 50% reduction in

attrition for new mothers.

A warm greeting for new employees: A warm greeting for a new employee turns out to have a big

impact. According to Bock, a manager greeting a new employee with Hi nice to meet you, youre on

my team, were gonna be working together and doing a few other things leads to a 15% increase in

productivity over the following nine months. Who knew words could have such a lasting impact?

Diner Booths vs. Conference Rooms: Laszlo and his team have found that diner booths work

better than conference rooms for facilitating creativity. David Radcliffe, the man in charge of creating

the perfect work environment, says that:

Casual collisions are what we try and create in the work environment. You cant schedule

innovation, you cant schedule idea generation and so when we think our facilities around the world

were really looking for little opportunities for engineers or for creative people to come together.

Managers Do Make a Difference: If you havent already read the article from New York Times

on Googles Quest to Build a Better Boss, you should. It busts the myth that managers dont make a

difference. Heres what they found:

Source: New York Times

Deep Technical Knowledge Doesnt Make the Best Managers:

Just because an engineer is ten times more productive doesnt mean theyll be the best manager,

according to Google. While having deep technical knowledge is important, it ranks as the least

important of the 8.

Google Culture Under Larry Page

On April 4, 2011 Larry Page officially became the CEO of Google, replacing Eric Schmidt. Google

had a few issues facing them at the time of the CEO transition, including:

Too many products. They had around 50 they were offering, many of which werent well

maintained.

No focus on design in many cases products hadnt changed in years

Too much bureaucracy. This led many employees to leave for Facebook, where they could

ship code early and often.

Whats changes have there been since Page became the leader?

More wood behind fewer arrows. In other words, more focus on fewer projects. Many

experiments were shut down (i.e. Google Labs died).

Theres a renewed and intense focus on making products beautiful.

 When Page took over as CEO, he said that the biggest threat facing Google was Google

itself. He says that as companies get bigger, it tends to take longer to make decisions. Things

have undoubtedly changed now.

Theyve also experimented in some interesting areas, such as self-driving cars, the Google x

phone, Project Glass (which is now Google Glass), and likely a few others that are still kept secret.

Check out this Fast Company article if youre interested in learning more about Google X.

Page has said that its in Googles DNA to experiment, and that only making a few products like

Apple is unsatisfying. He says:

You know, we always have these debates: We have all this money, we have all these people, why

arent we doing more stuff? You may say that Apple only does a very, very small number of things,

and thats working pretty well for them. But I find that unsatisfying. I feel like there are all these

opportunities in the world to use technology to make peoples lives better. At Google were attacking

maybe 0.1 percent of that space. And all the tech companies combined are only at like 1 percent.

That means theres 99 percent virgin territory. Investors always worry, Oh, you guys are going to

spend too much money on these crazy things. But those are now the things theyre most excited

aboutYouTube, Chrome, Android. If youre not doing some things that are crazy, then youre doing

the wrong things.

Update: On August 10, 2015 Larry Page stepped down as CEO of Google. Sundar Pichai was

appointed to replace Page, while Page became CEO of the newly-formed Alphabet, Inc, Googles

parent company.

If businesses want to attract top tiered talent that isnt consumed by making money, theyll need to

focus on making a great working culture. This includes the work atmosphere, to the work done, to

employee freedom.

And Google doesnt view their culture as a set it and forget it program. Theyre actively changing

and maintaining it, because its crucial to their success. With any business, it all starts with people.

And if you want to run great business, you need great people. One way to get them there and keep

them is by making their work fun. As Mark Twain said:

Work and play are words used to describe the same thing under differing conditions.

Analysis of Organisational Culture

at Google
rodrigo | December 20, 2012

1.Introduction
Analyzing an organization is no more than studying first its genesis its
mottos and beliefs and the future it holds for the society that it resides in. For
most companies, an organization is neither a science nor an art; its an
oxymoron. It is not a result from systematic, methodical planning but,
shaped more by politics than by policies. However, perceiving an
organization from a critical point of view would overshadow all the
development and technology that many organizations have contributed to
our society. In the words of Walt Disney co-founder of the Walt Disney
Company states that Whatever we accomplish is due to the combined
effort. The organization must be with you or you dont get it done In my
organization there is respect for every individual, and we all have a keen
respect for the public.

The author has chosen to talk about the Google culture from an
Interpretivism perspective as she worked as an Ad Words Representative for
the organisation.

2. Organizational Background
Google Inc an American public corporation earns its proceeds primarily from
its advertising which is related to its Internet search, e-mail, online
mapping, office productivity, social networking, and video sharing. Google is
not a conventional company and with no intention to become one either.
Throughout Googles evolution as a privately held company they have
always done it differently, where the emphasis is laid on the creativity and
challenge of its people which has resulted in providing unbiased, accurate
and free access information for its users.

The genesis of this organization begins with its co- founders Larry Page and
Sergey Bin alumni of Stanford University where it was incorporated as a
privately held organization on September 4, 1998 and then was moved to
public ownership on August 19th 2004. The organization is globally spread
across starting from the Head office in Mountain View California, with some
of its subsidiaries being India, United Kingdom, Germany, Brazil, Czech
Republic, Poland, South Africa, etc. With approximately 20,000 employees
working for this organization it has been voted by Fortune Magazine as The
Best Company to work for the second time in February 2008.

3. Analysis
3.1 Data collection
The analysis of the organization is done with respect to the Indian subsidiary
that is geographically located in the south of India- Hyderabad, Andhra
Pradesh. The author worked as an As Words representative for the
organization. The data collection for this analysis is based on a subjective
and objective perspective, the subjective data being the authors
observations, perceptions and experiences, and the objective being that
which is communicated and believed within the organization over the years.
The author relates the analyses to the one year work experience, work
relationships, work climate and culture, training and evaluation methods
which was gained and undergone at the organization. The author also takes
into count the strength of the workforce and the significant department in
concern in which the author was a count for and worked for. The strength of
the workforce noted to be an exact number of a 1000 employees for the year
2007- 2008 who worked for this subsidiary handling the Online Sales
Operation for Asia Pacific, with Ad Words being the main revenue generating
product other than that of Ad Sense.

3.2 Theories applied

The analysis of the organization has been done on the transformational
factor, Organizational culture, with a correlation to that of the authors
paradigm on Burrell & Morgans Sociological Paradigms and Organizational
Analysis, Heinemann, 1979 . Geert Hofstedes Cultural dimensions theory
has been used as the main model of analysis, however, to move beyond the
national culture dimension and towards the organizations levels of culture
Edgar Scheins Three levels of culture has also been applied.

Burrell & Morgans Sociological Paradigms gives an outlook of the authors

quadrant of perception on the company. Furthermore, the focus of study is
from a radical humanistic point of view, the author falls under this paradigm
believing that change begins with individual. The below given study also
covers the founders view of organizational culture which is supported by the
interview with Fortune Magazine.

4. Paradigm
Organizational Perception & Interpretation
4.1 Burrell & Morgans Sociological Paradigms
Understanding that the paper necessitates a more focused and specific
analysis Burrell & Morgans Sociological Paradigms and Organizational
Analysis, Heinemann, 1979 paradigms has been applied as this synchronic
model makes sense, which it places to time dimension on the study and
understanding of organizations. It can be comprehended that a paradigm is a
lens through which we perceive the world, each lens giving their own
meaning and assumptions about the nature of the world and the way it is
ought to be made sense of. There are many different lenses, which exist for
viewing and understanding the world, and what follows will be a necessary
simplification of a complex and constantly shifting set of boundaries that
define the current paradigms (Penny cook, A. 2001). Explaining Burrell &
Morgans Theory it is developed by a 22 matrix scheme to help classify and
understand existing sociological theories based on four major paradigms.
The matrix was structured based on the four main debates in sociology,
which was then further consolidated into two fundamental issues that form
the axis of the 22 matrix.

Sociological Paradigms
Functionalist Paradigm (objective regulation): Individuals in this paradigm
rest upon the premise that society has a real concrete existence and a
systematic character and is directed toward the production of order and
regulation. The social science enterprise is believed to be objective and
value-free. This paradigm possess a pragmatic orientation, it is concerned
with understanding society in a way that produces useful, usable knowledge.
(Craig & Paul, 1991)

Interpretive Paradigm (subjective regulation): From this perspective, social

reality, although possessing order and regulation, never realizes an external
concrete form. Instead it is the product of inter-subjective experience. The
goal of this paradigm is of developing a purely objective social science is a
specious one. (Craig & Paul, 1991)

Radical Humanist Paradigm (subjective radical change). The perception in

this paradigm shares its assumptions with that of the interpretive paradigm
that everyday reality is socially constructed and maintained. Theorists in this
paradigm are mainly concerned with releasing social constraints that limit
human potential. They see the current dominant ideologies as separating
people from their true selves. (Craig & Paul, 1991)

Radical Structuralist Paradigm (Objective Radical change): This paradigm

believes that social reality is considered to be largely independent of the way
it is socially constructed. It has an external existence of its own. The social
world is featured by intrinsic tensions and contradictions; these forces serve
to bring about radical change in the social system as a whole (Craig & Paul,
1991).

The paradigms correspond to theories of organizations, that which coexists

symbolizing and expressing confirming and contradictory views about what
and organization is and what it is ought to be and how could we go about
acquiring such knowledge.

Figure 1 Sociological Paradigms

After having being administered the Sociological Paradigm questionnaire, the

authors paradigm was established as being on the Interpretivist Paradigm of
the Quadrant.

Although, a radical humanist may share the assumption that everyday reality
is socially constructed and maintained with that of the interpretive paradigm,
this social construction is tied to pathology of consciousness, a situation in
which the author finds herself a prisoner of the social world that she creates
(Craig & Paul, 1991). However, as well said by David Collins (1996),
understanding the persons paradigm from a questionnaire cannot give the
person the right view of which paradigm we fall in as its just simple exercise
and the reader understanding and mood at that point of brings a big impact
on the way the reader answers the question. Therefore, though this
evaluation may give the authors paradigm further scrutiny on various
occasions would help confirm the evaluation.
4.2 Definition of Organizational Culture with Google
culture
Louis, (1980) defines culture as an understanding or meanings shared by a
group of people. Similarly Edgar Schein goes a little further and explains
organizational culture as apattern 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 you perceive,
think, and feel in relation to those problems (Schein. H,1997) Although, the
shared cognition or beliefs may seem the simplest understanding of
organizational culture, it also interprets a team effort and the significance of
sharing the same views and progressing that belief or perception but not
regressing.

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 I actually dont think keeping
the culture is a goal. I think improving the culture is. (Adam. L, 2008)
Furthermore, as described by Googles Chief culture officer Stacy Savides
Sullivan I 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 beforeworking 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 (Elinor, M. 2007)
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
companys strategy and manipulate culture to achieve the organizational
objective according to (Ogbonna and Harris, 2002).

4.3 Evaluation of Google organizational culture on the

Cultural Dimension Theory
Noting that the analysis is done on Googles Indian subsidiary, there is no
appropriate theory than that of the cultural dimension theory, judging that
the theory was structured to observe the interactions between the national
culture and the organizational culture. Geert Hofstede study demonstrated
that there are national and regional cultural groupings that affect the
behaviour of societies and organizations, and that are very persistent across
time. Applying the skills of an Interpretivist paradigm and comprehending
and analyzing the organization an evaluation has been done on the five
dimensions of the theory. The five dimensions being power distance,
Individualism and collectivism, Masculinity and feminity and uncertainty
avoidance Hofstede. G, (1997).

Figure 2. Cultural Dimensions of India

PDI Power distance, IDV Individualism, MAS Masculinity, UAI

Uncertainty avoidance index, LTO Long-term orientation.

4.3.1- Power Distance

On this dimension there is an insignificant distribution of power distance

between the superiors and subordinates of the organization. The distance,
which is even brought to notice, can be accounted for because of the
employees job profiles or experience within the organization and not
because of the kind of inequality brought among the employee relationship.
Bringing to notice Hofstedes dimensions for culture in India on the
dimension of Power distance India ranks 77 as compared to the world on an
average of 56.5 Hofstede.G, (1997), Google India Pvt. ltd seemed distant
from this dimensional score. On reflection, the author recollects that even
though the work experience in the organization was the first of her
professional life, her start at the organization did not give her a distant
feeling. The right of expression and freedom of thought and creativity was
encouraged in the organization. Employees are supported, in addition to
their regular projects, to spend 20% of their time working in what they think
will most benefit the Organization. The organization believes that many of
their significant advances have happened in this manner for example,
Adsense and Orkut.
Additionally, the company falls under the flat organization structure,
emphasizing on the importance of nooglers (new employees) taking up team
responsibilities and thereby creating a sense of belonging. Furthermore, to
remove the distribution of power distance the company believes in
transparency of information from the CEO Eric Schmidt sharing information
with that of a junior most employee such as that of an Ad Words
Representative. Portals are constantly created for employees to voice their
opinion and come up with solutions and ideas for existing and futuristic
problems. Though, the organization being based nationally in that of India
the organizational culture has not been influenced as yet by the national
culture.

4.3.2 -Individualism

Hofstede.G, (1997) stated that management in an individualist society is

management of individuals. Subordinates can usually be moved around
individually; if incentives or bonuses are given, these should be linked to an
individuals performance. Understanding that Individualism is appreciated
with a stress on collective effort or team work, recruiters are always on the
search of such employees who can maintain their individualism as well as
perform collectively as a team. The organization encourages and motivates
collective and team work, for which the appraisal is given on an Individual
performance.

Individualism holds that the individual is the primary unit of reality and the
ultimate standard of value. This view does not deny that societies exist or
that people benefit from living in them, but it sees society as a collection of
individuals, not something over and above them. The organization is
concerned about its employees well being and gives every opportunity to
learn best practices through teams. Team meeting and inter team events are
highly supported and are undertaken with a serious candor. In addition it
promotes other employee clubs funding Googler network, Google Women
Engineers and the Glbt- Gay, Lesbian, bisexual and transgender googler.
Google being an American based organization with an Indian investment
there is no difference on this dimension.

4.3.3 -Masculinity

Defining the value placed on traditionally male or female value systems this
dimension evaluates as to whether the organization gives importance to
competitiveness, assertiveness, ambition and accumulation of wealth
characteristics of the masculine culture or emphasis on relationships, and
quality of life which represents that of the feminine culture. As explained by
Hofstede, G. (1997) masculinity and femininity when comparing the culture
prevailing in one organization can be analyzed in he view of values in the
organization. Morgan (1986:54) talks about modelling the behaviours implied
in the values statement The modelling of appropriate behaviour must occur
at each level of the organization result in employees being modelled in these
same behaviours. Looking at the Google culture it can be roughly said that
the organization promotes a masculine value system in the organization
because of the benefits it provides to its employees. Benefits such as, along
with the basic salary a quarterly bonus and a company an annual bonus in
the month of December, furthermore, transportation and food requirements
which I provided with no charge and in abundance, health facilities as a gym
and a spa along with a medical check up and medical coverage of Rs.5,
00,000 Indian currency on the employees and their immediate dependants.
Additionally, day care centres for working parents and quarterly outings and
entertainment (called movie nights) are held along with a total support to
adventure, book and drama clubs, also, employees are given a discount in
the most affluent stores and restaurants in the city. However, this may seem
as a totally dominating masculine culture the founders of the Organization
have not forgotten their corporate social responsibility and also believe in
encouraging the feminine culture within the organization. The most
significant commandment of the organization Dont be Evil this belief relies
on the fact that company ought to do good for the world even if it has to
forego some short term gains. Moreover, as users believe in their systems it
is their duty to provide and unbiased and objective service. In addition to this
it promotes the concept of team development and peer feedback to better
the level of employee relationship within the organization. From a radical
humanist paradigm though this may seem a balanced organizational culture
it seems to be a strategy for the company to get hold of the employees from
moving to different organization.

4.3.4 -Uncertainty Avoidance Index

This dimension reflects the level of anxiety of the organization that is the
extent up to which the organization attempts to cope with anxiety by
minimizing uncertainty. Cultures that scored high in uncertainty avoidance
prefer guidelines and structured circumstances, and the employees tenure
in the company is longer. As expressed by Hofstede, G. (1997) Laws and
rules are ways in which a society tries to prevent uncertainties in the
behaviour of people. However, with regards to the organization there is
awareness that business environment changes rapidly hence there is no
hesitation to take high risk. The organization believes in funding projects that
have 10% chance of earning a billion dollars over the long term as in the
past pursuit of such projects have resulted in long term success. Although it
cannot be quantified the specific level of risk that the organization is willing
to undertake, as the ratio of reward to risk increases, the organization is
ready to accept projects further outside the current businesses, if the initial
investment is small relative to the level of investment in our current
businesses. To evaluate this as a high or low level of uncertainty avoidance is
difficult to tell as it seems but natural that most organizations would
definitely keep this as an ideal margin. Furthermore, the organization prides
itself on doing business with and selling its products on policies and
guidelines. With respect to policies and rules outside the business scenario
for the employees it can be said that the regulations are minimum that which
is in the best interest of the employee example ID badges, and
transportation checks for the security of the employees. As clearly seen from
the above graph India among all cultural dimension uncertainty avoidance is
the lowest where it is always people likes or has a habit of breaking rules
with regards to the organization it can be said there are no rules to be broken
in the first place. However, if minor offenses are committed employees are
aware and are mindful of the fact that time is money and in time serious
offenses can cost them their employment. As Brown(1998) states that rules
and regulations of an organization bonds to have a good ethics in the work
place and not which impose emotional stress on the behaviour of employees
in the organization. Nonetheless, the rules and regulations in Google
understand the freedom of the employees with knowledge of the importance
of the national culture of the location of the organization.

4.3.5 -Long term orientation

This dimension describes the time horizon, the long term or short-term vision
of the individual. Hofstede.G, (1997) explains this new dimension of long
term orientation verses the short term orientation can be analyzed related to
the job security and the long term vision of the employee in the organization
with respect to growth in an organization. Google determines that employees
within the organization are happy with their current job. They have an added
advantage of requesting the manager to give a work experience in different
projects. Employees are moved to different project where Google aims to use
employee rather than firing them, this shows that Google cares about its
employees. The organization believes that business decisions will be made
with the long-term welfare of the company and with share holders in mind
and not based on accounting considerations. Therefore it can be stated that
Google has a long-term oriented culture with respect to seeing the future of
its employees.

5. Evaluation of Google organizational culture on

Edgar Scheins Three levels of Culture
To understand the organization the best way to do it would be understanding
the culture. Schein divides organizational culture into three levels:

5.1 Artifacts:
This is being the most surface level of the organization example being the
dress code in the company.
5.2 Espoused Values:
Just below the level of the artifacts this level consists of the conscious
strategies, goals and philosophies

5.3 Basic Assumptions and Values:

the last lever is the core or essence of culture which is represented by the
basic underlying assumptions and values, which are difficult to discern
becausethey exist at a largely unconscious level.

Figure 3. Scheins Three levels of Culture

Figure 4. Googles Three levels of Organizational Culture

6. Criticisms
Although the above models have been applied to help analyze the
organizational culture, like any other theory they have their shortcomings.

6.1 Cultural dimension theory:

Schwartz, (1992) argues that Hofstedes survey based on one organization
(IBM) in his view of culture in an organization; one cannot conclude that
culture in all organization in that country practice the same. Furthermore,
Brown (1998) criticizes Hofstedes claims that he identified multiple national
cultures or differences between such cultures, challenging his research
approach. Brown also questions whether national culture dimensions uniform
national actions and institutions agree with brown as a challenging
environment in the present world organizations are challenging culture of
work irrespective of the national culture. Finally, McSweeney, Brendan
(January 2002) states Hofstedes work has not just also been criticized
because he seems to identify cultures with nations based on the supposition
that within each nation there is a uniform national culture. Other types of
cultures are acknowledged to exist but allowed little, if any influence.

6.2 Sociological Paradigm:

Though the sociological paradigm has been a well-accepted theory in
Organizational management its acceptance within the social sciences have
done so with little regard to the models internal consistency. Pinder and
Bourgeoise (1982) state that Burrell and Morgans application of ontology
has been misplaced. In addition, another fundamental issue is that whether
the intra paradigm perspectives adhere to similar images of the subject
matter. Hence, like most significant theories every shortcoming gives
thought for future theories.

Conclusion
In conclusion the task has been challenging and educative for the author in
comprehending the structure and culture of an organization though in many
instances the observations could be in many aspects be influenced as an
employee or my inadequacies of being a good observer to have noticed any
kind of pros within the organization. However, my opinion on Google have
changed understanding the difference of culture in an organization
challenging the national culture in certain areas and understanding the
cultural practice comparing other organization in different parts of the world.
The author being in the quadrant of the Interpretivist Paradigm identifies
with the organization being a merge of care and value systems.

References
1. http://www.google.com/

2. Adam Lashinky(January 29, 2008) Google wins again. From the

link http://money.cnn.com/2008/01/18/news/companies/google.fortune/i
ndex.htm. Retrieved on 29th July 2009.

3. Brown, A (1998) Organisational Culture, London, Financial Times.

4. Burrell, G., & Morgan, G(1979). Sociological Paradigms and

Organizational Analysis:Heinemann, pp. 1-37

5. Collins, D. (1996) New Paradigms for Change: Theories of Organisation

and the Organisation of Theories. Journal of organisational change
management, Vol. 9 No. 4 pp9-23

6. Craig, S., & Paul, D. (1991). The Management research

handbook. London: Routledge, 318, pp. 24-38..

7. Elinor Mills (April 17, 2007) Meet Googles culture czar from the
link http://news.cnet.com/Meet-Googles-culture-czar/2008-1023_3-
6179897.html Retrieved on 1st August 2009.
8. Hofstede, Geert. (1997) Culture and Organisations: Software of the
Mind, Newyork, Mcgraw Hill.

9. Louis, M.R (1997) Organizations as culture.

10. McSweeney, B. (2002). Hofstedes Model Of National Cultural

Differences And Their Consequences:A Triumph Of Faith- A Failure Of
Analysis. Human Relations , 89-118.

11. Mills, E. (2007, April 27). news.cnet.com. Retrieved 07 21, 2009, from
Meet Googles culture czar: http://news.cnet.com/Meet-Googles-culture-
czar/2008-1023_3-6179897.html

12. Mintzberg, H(1983). Structure in Fives Designing Effective

Organizations:Prentice Hall Inc.

13. Ogbonna, E. & Harris, L.C.(2002), Organizational Culture: A ten year,

two phase study of change in the UK food retailing sector. Journal of
Management studies, 39 (5), Culture pp. 673-706.

14. Penny cook, A. (2001) Critical applied linguistics : a critical

introduction. Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum., 2001.

15. Schein, E. (1997, October). Organizational Culture & Leadership .

Retrieved 07 21, 2009, from www.tnellen.com:
http://www.tnellen.com/ted/tc/schein.html

16. Scheins model