A brief background to Google and its environment
Google Inc., founded by Sergey Brin and Larry Page back in 1996, was initially named as “Backrub”. After the success of the company, and after the name change, the company transformed as well as acquired more than one hundred and forty companies around the world such as Motorola, Android and YouTube. The changing of the name of the company signifies a period of change in 1998 when Sergey and Page decided to receive aid as a form of sponsorship from Any Bechtolsheim who provided one million dollars for public expansion (Vise, 2005).
The success of Google is not reliant on the luck of its owners but on the extra efforts that came from creating an index of the number of website visits by the users. Besides website search, Google users have been able to get their queries processed and obtain hits for their websites through attractive advertisement placements. The company happens to be spread globally with over 20,000 employees across subsidiaries in Germany, Czech Republic, South Africa, Poland, United Kingdom etc (Bock, 2015).
Google has been known for its open culture since its advent. The organizational culture at Google revolves around basic principles of focusing on the user, being fast, ensuring democracy across the web, working even without a suit, making money without evil intentions, sharing information across borders, being at the desk is not necessary, being great is not enough etc.(Alhajri, 2016). The innovative and open environment at Google relies mostly on the ability of the employees at Google to reinforce the aforementioned values throughout operational processes (Tran, 2017).
The environment at Google happens to be essential characteristic or working for the organization because the open innovation and fun environment encourages the sharing of opinions and feedback as well as generates interpersonal relationships. This helps the employees to collaborate further and achieve organizational goals while enriching the culture of the organization (Bock, 2015).
Focus of the report
Companies are considered as miniature societies in a large and diverse community and similar to large societies, big companies happen to have cultures of their own. The culture of an organization tends to reflect a shared mindset or an understanding which guides specific actions or interpretations of certain actions. Multinational corporations tend to have their own culture, which is not unique but also reflects the identification of a company. The focus of this research is to emphasize the culture of Google Inc. and analyze the organizational practice by the company in light of Schien’s Elements of Culture Model. The application of Edgar Schein’s Model will enable a better understanding of the existing values and core culture at the organization.
Theoretical frameworks
The theoretical framework chosen for analysis is Edgar Schein’s cultural model; however, before this model was adopted, the capabilities, as well as constraints of the Hofstede model, were explored. The Hofstede model was deemed as an improper technique for analysis of the organizational practice.
Rejection of Hofstede Framework
Hofstede model, developed by Geert Hofstede, presents an analysis based on dimensions between national and organizational culture. It consists of a total of six dimensions, namely collectivism, power distance, masculinity, uncertainty avoidance, long-term orientation and indulgence. The main reason for the rejection of this model is that it is inconclusive when it comes to concentrating on organizational culture alone since it determines the culture of the organization based on national culture. The framework might come in handy when analyzing the culture across nations, however, in this research, the focus is mainly on the cultural practice of an organization not on the national culture (Sweeney, 2002).
Justification for framework selection
The organizational culture model by Edgar Schein was developed in the 1980s and identified the ideology by providing a source of understanding for differences that exist between different companies. Schein suggests that the culture of an organization happens to be a collective sequence of assumptions developed by individuals regarding their organization. These assumptions happen to be considered as valid as well as reliable. The culture, according to Schein’s framework, happens to be based on core values as they shape behaviour as well as practices which form the visible part of the culture(Hill, 2012).
Schein’s framework has been chosen for analysis in this case because Schein’s framework can best be applicable for identifying Google’s culture. Google has deeply embedded core values and assumptions that were introduced at the initiation of the company. Schein’s model can mainly be applicable because it correlates with the environment of the selected organization. For example, if an individual enters Google Inc. on the day of their initiation, they would recognize the atmosphere as well as the values incorporated within the workplace instantly because of the visible artefacts as well as symbols on display that can be traced back to the company’s core values(Daft, 2015).
An explanation of the chosen theoretical framework
The model proposed by Edgar Schein explores the facets of organizational culture in which core values shape behaviour and practices. To be precise, Schein (1990) defines culture as a pattern consisting of underlying assumptions, developed, invented or discovered by a specific group of individuals who cope with issues through internal integration and by adapting externally. This culture works well enough to be taught to new members and is considered the correct way for perceiving and feeling about arising issues(Cotter-Lockard, 2016).
Schein (1990) states that when it comes to analyzing culture, there happen to be three distinguished levels which manifest themselves as being integral to learning. These three levels include observable artefacts, basic underlying assumptions and values.
Artifacts and Symbols
According to Schein (1990), when an individual enters the organization, he or she observes as well as feels the presence of artifacts. The artifacts are the physical aspects present within an organization such as the dress code, the layout of design, the manner in which individuals interact with each other, the feel or smell of the office, the emotional intensity as well as the manifestation of the company statements of philosophy, products, records and annual reports. However, the main issue with artifacts is that they can be palpable and challenging to interpret quickly. An individual can feel the presence of artifacts and react to them, but that does not necessarily mean that it is a reliable indicator of how employees within an organization react (Schein E. , 1985).
For example, the main flaw of analyzing the artefacts of an organization such as the myths, stories, symbols etc. is that an individual might make inferences which are incorrect as he or she might not be sure what the underlying assumption is going to be about. Organizational stories might also be problematic to analyze as there is not particular clarity when it comes to the lesson.
Values
Through the use of questionnaires, interviews as well as survey instruments, an organization’s core values, philosophy, ideologies etc. can be documented. Schein (1990) highlights that beliefs and values happen to be the fundamental characteristic of the culture of an organization. This is because values shape the way an organization appears. Values belong to a higher level of consciousness as they reflect the shared opinion of the employees within an organization.
The values enable the members of an organization to classify the actions as well as situations to foresee whether an issue is desirable or undesirable. Values do not always lead to underlying assumptions, and even after they have been articulated, arranged as well as listed, they have issues with priority. This means that the observer might only find that the values conform to a specific pattern and might be incongruent with the behaviour of the observer.
Assumptions
Schein (1990) states that through focused observation, questions, as well as detailed analysis one, can decipher the underlying assumptions and use them to determine the perceptions, behaviour, feelings as well as processes of individuals present within an organization (Schein, 1990). According to Schein (1990), if one can understand the underlying assumptions individuals of an organization hold, one can quickly determine the meaning behind behaviour and eventually how the culture of an organization works. Assumptions happen to be beliefs that are not challenged by anyone since they are considered to be taken for granted. For example, a pattern of underlying assumptions includes individuals who formulate the core culture within an organization. When the underlying assumptions happen to be understood, they clarify the artefacts which might have been confusing before (Schein E. H., 1990).
Six types of assumptions have been given by Schein (1985) which include assumptions regarding the truth of the social as well as physical matters, as to how truth can be determined and whether truth is going to be discovered or not (Schein E., 1985). The second assumption is about the assumption about the importance of time within a group. The third assumption is about how space is going to be allocated as being symbolic. Fourth happens to be the basic assumption about the ultimate or intrinsic aspects of human nature, examining whether human nature is bad or good. The fifth is the assumption which individuals have about the organization’s relationship with the environment, the basic understanding of play and work, passivity as well as activity. The sixth assumption centers upon the extent to which individuals relate to each other, precisely the ways in which they distribute responsibilities and power.
Figure 1 Schein Organizational Culture Model
Schein (1990) states that it is possible that a group belonging to a particular organization can have values which conflict with each other and manifest themselves as being inconsistent with the behavior of the individuals within the organization while having consensus with underlying assumptions. Moreover, it is also possible that some individuals reach an agreement or a consensus based on the behavior and values while developing conflict because of the underlying assumptions. Assumptions that are deeply held often begin as values that have stood the test of time and are now taken for granted(Lund, 2003).
An Analysis of the Open Innovation Practice at Google Inc.
According to Schein (1990), culture happens to be ubiquitous as it encompasses all areas of group life. To simplify the typology when it comes to culture is always dangerous because many variables might not be right when one distills culture from a specific group to a coping mechanism in external and internal dimensions. Thus the culture of an organization can be seen as a learned response to every single task. The same can be said about the open innovation practice done at Google Inc. This is because not only is the company growing but also exponentially expanding its vision through open innovation. An innovation culture has been nurtured within the company for many years for it to become a coping mechanism in response to changing external as well as internal factors.
Artefacts
When it comes to the visible cultural products of Google Inc. in terms of innovative culture, the most common propellant of the open innovation practice is the special distribution and style of the office. This is the physical symbol that shows the collective innovative layout of the office (Bock, 2015). Brin and Page founded Google as students when their perspective was rooted in the jubilant and playful ideology of creating offices that are “playground for adults”. It has been mentioned specifically on their website that the cafes, as well as offices at Google, are designed to let the employees have better interaction within and across the teams (Morente, 2017). This is the best way to enhance work as well as play. Therefore, the aesthetics and design of the Google office aim to channelize the fun environment in which innovation can be carried out openly(Bjerke, 2007).
Instead of having formal board rooms or meeting rooms, the offices, as well as meeting rooms, are decorated in such a way that they breakdown the corporate aura and create a rather casual surrounding in which employees feel at ease to share ideas and think out of the box. Thus the surface of the reality which happens to be the part visible to other employees is exactly what makes the ambiance of the workspace open to new ideas (Bock, 2015).
The workstations at Google mostly have two or more than two occupants which makes it easier for employees to share ideas and interact with each other. This shows that the artifacts at Google transform the way employees interact and change the organizational processes which in the long run becomes a routine. Other than office space, the furniture at Google offices consists of recreational items and the sole functions of such items are to aid the employees to blow off steam from work (Bock, 2015). These include slides, nap pods, green filters, pool tables, etc. to engage the employees and stimulate their creative side. Furthermore, these artifacts create a sense of satisfaction within the workplace which enhances the innovative culture and motivates the employees. The level of creativity at Google workspace is jaw-dropping as diverse shapes are used to ignite the brain and rethink the spaces as well as work habits.
Furthermore, employees at Google are encouraged to do work where they feel the most comfortable which means they can leave their workstations and sit where they feel the most relaxed (Schein E., 1985). Numerous themes are chosen to make the space more interactive and to suit the varied work styles of the employees. There is a gigantic Lego area space as well as puzzles solved by employees placed on shelves to encourage the employees to creatively solve puzzles(Zuber, 2016). Another interesting thing to note is that the floors in the building are not connected with stairs or elevators. Some floors are connected with ladders and designed so that the employees engage themselves in a physical form. Games such as Pac-Man machines happen to be lined in hallways free of charge where employees can go to relax. The game rooms at Google foster interactive and open innovation practices for dynamic groups.
Values
Values can only be confirmed by having a shared experience as a group. Cultural elements included as values happen to be shared visions, strategies, knowledge, consensus, commitments, and processes (Vise, 2005). The innovative culture at Google attempts to maintain that the employees, also known as the Googlers, that work at the organization happen to be at the heart of the organization and creativity as well as open innovation contributes to betterment (Morente, 2017). These shared values implied that there is a management structure at the company which reduces the level of hierarchy and rigidness while promoting communication. Schein (1990) highlights that beliefs and values happen to be the fundamental characteristic of the culture of an organization (Schein E. H., 1990). This is because values shape the way an organization appears.
Google Inc. centers on its people-focused and innovation-centric approach and this is exactly what can be categorized as the value in Schein’s framework. Karen Goodwin, the operational sales manager at Google stated that Google has a “Highly innovative and collaborative culture”. This statement provides the perception of an individual about the company specifically from the employee’s point of view. Thus this value will formulate into a belief that innovation and ideas should be generated at the workplace is made possible through visible artifacts at the office (Vise, 2005).
Basic Assumptions
Google Inc. remains at the pinnacle of the tech industry by maintaining a distinct culture. The management at the company understands that in order to incorporate top-notch innovation, there needs to be an environment in which employees can thrive in. The “no-fear environment” statement by a Google official given to Business Insider signifies that in order to achieve open innovation, the employees need to be satisfied and for maintaining the innovative culture as well as enhancing productivity, there should be a culture that encourages employees to share ideas without any hesitation (Tran, 2017).
Thus open innovation is not just taken as a practice in the organization but it is taken as a way of acting, interpreting, thinking, interacting and feeling. The assumption that a “no-fear environment” channelizes open innovation happens to be an assumption that is modified by the closely held values of the employees as well as by the artifacts in the workplace (Tran, 2017). Furthermore, individuals at Google Inc. hold the basic assumption that employee satisfaction leads to more productivity. Employees can be productive if they work collectively, innovate and synergize. Thus by promoting open innovation culture this basic assumption of achieving employee satisfaction through innovation leads to shared values.
Conclusion
The environment at Google Inc. happens to be an essential characteristic of working for the organization because open innovation and fun environment encourages the sharing of opinions and feedback as well as generates interpersonal relationships. Edgar Schein suggests that the culture of an organization happens to be a collective sequence of assumptions developed by individuals regarding their organization (Schein E. H., 1990). Schein’s three levels of cultural phenomenon explain the multi-layered organizational structure of Google Inc. The open innovation culture at Google Inc. has been nurtured within the company for many years for it to become a coping mechanism in response to changing external as well as internal factors. This is because the “no-fear environment” is considered as a shared value among the employees who prefer to work in an environment that is like a playground for adults. Numerous themes are chosen to make the space more interactive and to suit the varied work styles of the employees. Other than office space, the furniture at Google offices consists of recreational items and the sole functions of such items are to aid the employees to blow off steam from work. The employees, in turn, are satisfied and more productive which results in betterment for the company.
References
Alhajri, A. (2016). Creativity and Innovation in Google. International Journal of Science and Research, 55.
Bjerke, R. (2007). The impact of aesthetics on employee satisfaction and motivation. EuroMed Journal of Business , 57-73.
Bock, L. (2015). Work Rules!: Insights from Inside Google That Will Transform How You Live and Lead. Grand Central Publishing.
Cotter-Lockard, D. (2016). Edgar Schein’s Organizational Culture and Leadership, as seen through the lens of Ken Wilber’s AQAL Framework. Fielding Graduate University, 33.
Daft, R. L. (2015). Organization Theory and Design . South-Western College .
Hill, P. (2012). CULTURE AND ORGANISATION. Pearson.
Lund, D. B. (2003). Organizational culture and job satisfaction. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 40.
Morente, F. (2017). Innovation cultural models: review & next steps proposal. Universidad & Empresa, 330.
Schein, E. (1985). Organizational Culture and Leadership. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign’s Academy for Entrepreneurial Leadership Historical Research Reference in Entrepreneurship, 30.
Schein, E. H. (1990). Organizational Culture. Sloan School of Management, 111-118.
Sweeney, B. M. (2002). Hofstede’s Model of National Cultural Differences and their Consequences: A Triumph of Faith – a Failure of Analysis. Human Relations, 89-118.
Tran, S. K. (2017). GOOGLE: a reflection of culture, leader, and management. International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility , 10.
Vise, D. A. (2005). The Google Story (2018 Updated Edition): Inside the Hottest Business, Media, and Technology Success of Our Time. Random House Publishing Group.
Zuber, F. B. (2016). Google Organizational Culture Practices. The International Journal Of Business & Management, 20-23.