Critical Analysis of Google's Organisational Culture

Critical Analysis of Google’s Organisational Culture

Zisong SONG School of Economics, Finance & Management, University of Bristol DOI: 10.12184/wspciWSP2516-252705.20200401

1. Introduction ccording to Steiber and Alänge (2016, p.93), organisational culture is a crucial A factor that helps companies to achieve success, which depends on the belief system of the employees and the company’s management style. The cool culture of new tech industries will be argued in this essay, and the cool culture will be assumed as a culture that satisfies employees and to help them work effectively. Google will be analysed because Google is one of few and representative new tech companies with the fastest growth, meanwhile, famous for its culture (Tran 2017, p.2). For analysing this cool culture and what beyond of cool culture, the Schein’s iceberg model and Maslow’s (1954) hierarchy of needs will be selected as tools to reveal cool culture of google. This analysis on the basis of two perspectives which as culture and motivation. Schein’s iceberg will be used by analysing culture parts, and Maslow’s hierarchy of needs will concentrate on the motivation part. The analysis of cool culture is composed of motivation and culture. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs will be the foothold of criteria for evaluating whether Google’s organisational culture is cool. The Schein’s iceberg models for analysing Google’ culture, which from three aspects to evaluate its associated with motivations in order to evaluate its culture. The new tech industries’ cool culture is beneficial to enhance employee’s productivities and creativities to some extents but a shield for protecting some negative information that they expect to cover. 2. Literature Review of Existing Knowledge

(1) Organizational Culture The organisational culture is playing a vital role in organisations, and it affects and reflect the organisation value and brief to some extent. For understanding the

34 Critical Analysis of Google’s Organisational Culture

importance of culture, it is required that a definition of organisational culture. How- ever, there is not exactly a definition of organisational culture but have a blurred image. Ravasi and Schultz (2006, p.5 cited Fiol 1991 Martin 2002) define organisational culture as a set of shared mental assumptions that guide interpretation and action in organisations. It also has long been argued (Schein 1983, p.5) that a pattern contains behaviour and assumption that can teach organisational members as a fun- damental way to think and perceive. So, the organisational culture plays an important role in organisations, which whole organisations act based on shared assumption. (2) Schein’s iceberg model Schein (2010 pp.17-30) argued that organisational culture is analysed by three- level, artefacts, espoused beliefs and values and basic underlying assumption. From the visible, expressible cultural output to unnoticeable value and primitive assumption. Schein (2010, p.18) agreed that the feature of culture is easy to observe but difficult to decipher, which means every culture inherent meaning is not able to ac- curately identify especially for large institutions. The artefacts, this is only ways to express organisational culture, which including services, products, style, and so on. According to Schein (1983, pp. 15-18), artefacts are the physical structure of culture, just like the most exposed part of an iceberg. The artefact is a crucial part of organisational culture, and the customer knows companies’ culture from products, dress code, and so on. Therefore, a manifestation of the culture. Moreover, it is a foundation of coordination. Which deeper, Espoused beliefs and values is the less visible part of three levels analysis, and it represented that originally individual briefs and values. Schein (2010, p.19) argued that these beliefs and value have to reflect and evaluated by other members that justify these individual beliefs is right or wrong. These individual beliefs cannot be underestimated especially for the prototype of new projects, its beliefs will determine approaches and methods to operate this project, and its belief needs to be evaluated by the top management in case to make a right direction. The deepest of Schein iceberg models is underlying basic assumptions. Based on the Schein (2010, p.21) and Frost (1985, pp.33-38), the Basic assumption could be defined as a granted assumption and sense that has been gradually approved by a hunch or a value from assumption to reality. Furthermore, this sense coming granted, while reaped success repeatedly in applicating these beliefs and values. Hatch and Schultz (2004, pp.132-135) stated that culture at this level is able to provide its members with a basic sense of identity and provide a self-esteem that defined by values. This is a common assumption of organisations which is a part of organisational culture, McGregor (2000, pp.9-12) argued that the basis of management and control system is based on the assumptions about “human nature”, and only companies treat people consistently based on basic assumption, as a result, people will follow those basic assumptions eventually to finish their job with predictivity and stability.

Creativity and Innovation Vol.4 No.1 2020

(3) Maslow’s hierarchy of needs Maslow (1987) published the hierarchy of needs models, which for investigat- ing how to motivates people. Maslow (1943) believed that people can be motivated to achieve certain needs, and McLeod (2007, p.2) stated when people fulfil one needs, then they seek another needs to fulfil continuously. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs classified needs into five motivational needs contains physiological, safety, belonging, self-esteem and self-actualisation. According to McLeod (2007, p.2) and Gawel (1996), the five-stage models constructed by basic needs and growth needs. Maslow (1987) stated basic needs called physiological drives because it is a starting point of motivation theory. Physiological needs contain all of the fundamen- tal needs that human being needs, which including air, food, drink, shelter, warmth, sex, sleep. Maslow (1987, pp.35-39) believed that if all of the physiological needs cannot be satisfied, and people dominated by the physiological needs, consequently, other needs may be pushed into the background or become nonexistent. The physiological needs are most important among all of the needs. Maslow (1987 pp.39-44) argued that the safety needs which require that people live in the stable, secure, free of terror environment. Meanwhile, the safety needs are unsatisfied; people start to avoid anything that can lead to danger and or go into a panic reaction. The safety needs can become very urgent on the social scene when- ever there are real threats to law, to order, to the authority of society. (Maslow 1987, p.43) After satisfied these two needs, new requirements of love and affection and belonging needs may be occupied as a new centre. Any good society must satisfy this need, one way or another, if it is to survive and be healthy. (Lester 1990, p.1187) In our society, the thwarting of these needs is the most commonly found core in cases of maladjustment and more severe pathology According to Maslow (1987), The esteem needs are able to lead to feelings of self-confidence, worth, strength, capability, and adequacy of being useful and nec- essary of the world, which cannot be ignored. Maslow (1987) believed that people desire for self-fulfilment; they trend actualised their internal potentially. This trend might be phrased as the desire to become more and more what one idiosyncratically is to become everything that one is capable of becoming. So that, Maslow (1987) augured that the apparent emergence of these needs usually rests upon some prior satisfaction of the physiological, safety, love, and esteem needs. 3. The Positive Aspects of Google’s Organisational Cultures This section identifies whether the google’ organisational culture is cool, evaluate its positive effects by Schein’ model and Maslow’ hierarchy of needs. According to Noviantoro (2014) and Battelle (2011), Google is one of the well- known and most admired companies around the words; it became a representation of searching information on the web, called googling. According to Agutter (2014)

36 Critical Analysis of Google’s Organisational Culture

and Caufield (2005), Google altered the ways that people are living in this world via their impressive products. Fast and Campbell (2005) and Tran (2017) believed that the culture of google is essential elements, while Google succeed. Pratap (2019) stated that Google’ organisational culture is driven by innovation, diversity and friendliness. Relatively, Google (2019) and Smithson (2018) claim that Making progress on diversity, equity, and inclusion, which enable everyone to access information equally. These slogans and value expressed by google’ products and express to customers. The basic assumption of google is that everyone able to access information equally rather than depends on race, ethical, and so on. Based on Schein’s model, the products and slogans of google are expressions of Google’s value and culture. Noniantoro (2014) and Tran (2017) stated that basically, mostly products of google are phenomenal and affecting modern lifestyle to some extents. For example, google searching undoubtedly to alter primary ways to solve the ques- tion and ensure everyone acquires the same information to the greatest extent, which is google provided an innovative and different way. Arnold (2017) stated that YouTube allows all people to upload their videos to express ideas. Meanwhile, everyone is able to access information from YouTube as well. It caused millions of people do not watch tv anymore; they preferred to watch YouTube as their primary en- tertaining ways. According to Schein’s model, google express their value and briefs to external via their products with their basic assumptions. Google’s products unconscious pre- sents its value to customers, which is innovative. It is due to google’ basic assumption that present these innovative products in order to achieve their assumption. Google’ community contains various race and different culture background, for co- ordinating with different culture and improve their identity. Google (2019) stated that they established different communities for employees, including Asian, African, LGBT and women. Trans (2017) believed that Google’s efforts to increase their sense of belonging, and based on the Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory, google’ culture identify all of the employees as Googlers in order to improve employees’ belonging, which is a foundation to achieve self-actualisation. In order to achieve employee’ self-actualisation and keeping employees happy and productive, Majum- der (2016) and Pichère et al. (2015) stated that google provides extrinsic benefits for employees to maintain productivities just like other companies. However, Google is known for how to improve employees’ productivity, providing haring cutting salon, free snacks, on-site medical service, relive stress program, various insurance, and so on. Google satisfied all of the basic need for their employees to the greatest extent, which for helping employees to be motivated. Moreover, Google (2019) stated that Google’s working foam on the basis of teams and allow teams’ internal value and briefs to collide and corporate. For opti- mising and justifying these ideas, Google requires every team to communicate with each other and sharing ideas, through wide discussion to justify individual briefs

Creativity and Innovation Vol.4 No.1 2020 rather than only justified by managers. Trans (2017, p.7) agreed that google combine and justify individual espoused brief and value though corporation of teams. Further- more, Google (2019) empowering diverse leaders, and expanding social innovation. Diverse leader program is aimed to improve the self-esteem of minority race, which for constructing their self-confidence and capability. Furthermore, this program is able to help them to realise their necessity for Google. Meanwhile, employees are satisfied by self-esteem needs and be motivated to work productively. According to Trans (2017) and Maslow (1987), Google tries to motivate employees to the greatest extent in order to help employees to actualise themselves and awake their potentiality. The Google’ underlying basic assumption is composed of motivation based on convenient workplace, and satisfaction of needs, corporation is better than the competition, and inclusive diversity. Majumder (2016) and Brook (2018) believed that Google motivated employees via providing productive workplace to employees, which satisfied all of needs of employees. Meanwhile, Pratap (2019) agreed that google encourages cooperation and participation than individual- ism, it may be inspired by google’ founders’ teamwork, and it already approved its effectiveness repeatedly. So, the minimum of the unit are teams rather than individ- uals, which means that google assumed that teamwork and coordination are capable of leading google to achieve success. It must have been approved thousands of times that became the underlying basic assumption. Google encourage and require employees to participate in these interactions across teams which spark a new idea in Google Café. To summarise, google’ organisational cultures can be defined as cool culture, which can highly motivate employees to work productively. Google satisfying employees’ needs in order to direct them to achieve self-actualisation and awake their potentiality. Majumder (2016) and Pratap agreed that google’ cultures are most effective in terms of motivating employees. As a result, for years continuously, Google has been ranked as one of the best places to work. 4. The Negative Aspects of Google’s Organisational Cultures Google’s culture also causes many problems that do not make them as perfect and effective as they advertise. Gilbert (2019) stated that one of the major sources of these negative aspects is the company’s acceptance of ‘aberrant geniuses’, according to former CEO Eric Schmidt interview. The google judges these aberrant geniuses with different criteria compared with other employees, and it mainly thanks to google’ cultures that believe they are ones that drive of products. Gilbert (2019) agreed that one of the “aberrant geniuses” named was former Android head Andy Rubin, who left Google in 2014 with a $90 million exit package after being accused of coercing a co-worker to perform oral sex, which caused a series of protests and strikes to disobey sex harassment. Read (2018) and Gilbert (2019) agreed that it is google’ cultural standard that allows executives treasure certain employees so much even they are accused of serious misconduct and permitted that they quit with a generous

38 Critical Analysis of Google’s Organisational Culture

bonus. It disobeyed the equality that google disseminate to public. Even when its misbehaviour violated conscious and basic assumptions, but executives still took sides with ‘aberrant geniuses’. Furthermore, according to Quora commenters (former Googlers) stated that google internal cultures caused numerous issues, and it is not like as good as they describe. A Software engineer accused that working in google too hard to get promoted and the only metric is launch. Even employees work on internal projects so hard, but they can be promoted due to these projects is not make an external impact. Additionally, mostly former Googler compliant that job has been taken their most time and energy to be productive during numerous amounts of work. According to Quora (2016), former Googlers stated that they spent the majority of life to work, and every corner of your life is set up to reinforce the idea that you would be abso- lutely insane to want to be anywhere else. Many Googlers quitted due to stress, as Cannella (2015) stated that the basic requirement is that people with high educational pedigree and capability to work on at least 300 tasks at the same time. Basically, the limited vacation time around 15 days of whole years cannot be released employees’ tiredness. Trans (2015) and Quora (2016) agreed that Google’s high-speed, high-productivity and high-competition environments covered by their fantastic cultures. So, Google’s cultures could highly motivate people but followed by high stress. In addition, according to Quora (2016), New employees will be randomly assigned to a group for a long time, but employees are not interested or unable to actualise themselves. Mostly former googles compliant about competitive environment between groups. Meanwhile, it is due to busyness that there is no time to make friends because the work is too busy. Many times, employees are left alone or isolated. The strangest thing is that Google’s employees’ salary depends on what colleagues evaluate employee’ performance, and they do not judge employees’ salary based on the amount of work they do. In summary, Google’s cool cultures can motivate employees to some extents, but it also caused many issues. Google’s aberrant geniuses’ culture has formed unfair treatments and standard of different employees. Google’s team culture is not as effective as they advertise because the distribution of the group is not based on individual wishes to achieve the desired results. Although the teams cooperate internally, the competition between teams is very fierce. Due to the amount of work that results in employees not having time to make friends inside Google, some employees may feel lonely and isolated. So, Google’s friendly and equal culture is superficial. Google’s cool culture is wrapped in a highly competitive environment and inequality. So, the objective of Google’s cool culture to attract more unsuspecting potential employees to create value for them.

Creativity and Innovation Vol.4 No.1 2020

5. Conclusion In conclusion, this article discussed the real picture of a cool culture in the new technology industry on the basis of Schein’ s iceberg model and Maslow’s hierarchy of needs and used Google as a case study to investigate the real picture of cool culture. Google culture is aimed to motivate employees to the greatest extent, which contains a diversity, cooperation and teamwork. Based on the theoretical analysis of Google’s cool culture, Trans (2011) and it can motivate employees and help to realise their potentiality. However, after learning about some Google scandals and complaints from former employees, it is founded that Google’s cool culture is actually superficial. Google’s management is required that re-examines cultures and make it practical, reconciling internal conflicts. Constructing a friendly atmosphere while employees are working rather than a highly stressful work environment. Google is able to learn from small companies and hold parties in related departments as common methods in order to reduce the appearance of loneliness and isolation. The limitation of the essay is that all of the researches are based on secondary sources, especially hard to analysing for the inherent nature of culture. Works Cited [1] AGUTTER, A.R., 2014. Getting Inside Google’s Head Book: The 13 Key Ele- ments to Successful Web Site Optimization. Alastair R Agutter. [2] BATTELLE, J., 2011. The search: How Google and its rivals rewrote the rules of business and transformed our culture. Hachette UK. [3] FROST, P. J., 1985. Organizational culture. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications. [4] HATCH, M. J. AND SCHULTZ, M., 2004. Organizational identity: a reader. Oxford: Oxford University Press (Oxford management readers). [5] MASLOW, A. H., FRAGER, R. AND FRAGER, R., 1987. Motivation and personality. Third edition / edn. New York: Harper and Row. [6] CAUFIELD, J., 2005. “Where Did Google Get Its Value?” portal: Libraries and the Academy, 5(4), pp. 555–72. doi: 10.1353/pla.2005.0047. [7] FAST, K. V. AND CAMPBELL, D. G., 2005. “‘I Still Like Google’: University Student Perceptions of Searching Opacs and the Web,” Proceedings of the Amer- ican Society for Information Science and Technology, 41(1), pp. 138–46. doi: 10.1002/meet.1450410116. [8] GAWEL, J.E., 1996. Herzberg’s theory of motivation and Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 5(1), p.11. [9] LESTER, D., 1990. “Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs and Personality,” Personality and Individual Differences, 11(11), pp. 1187–1188. doi: 10.1016/0191- 8869(90)90032-M. [10] MCGREGOR, D., 2000. “The Human Side of Enterprise,” Reflections: The SoL Journal, 2(1), pp. 6–15. [11] MCLEOD, S., 2007. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Simply psychology, 1.

40 Critical Analysis of Google’s Organisational Culture

[12] PICHÈRE, P., CADIAT, A. AND PROBERT, C., 2015. Maslow’s Hierarchy of needs. 50 minutes. [13] RAVASI, D. AND SCHULTZ, M., 2006. “Responding to Organizational Iden- tity Threats: Exploring the Role of Organizational Culture,” ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, 49(3), pp. 433–58. [14] SCHEIN, E. H., 1983. “The Role OF the Founder in Creating Organizational Culture,” Organizational Dynamics, 12(1), pp. 13–28. doi: 10.1016/0090- 2616(83)90023-2 [15] STEIBER, A. AND ALÄNGE, S., 2015. “Culture: The New Black”, Manage- ment for Professionals, pp. 87-104. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-24921-6_6. [16] TRAN, S., 2017. “GOOGLE: a reflection of culture, leader, and management”, International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility, 2(1), pp. 1–14. doi: 10.1186/s40991-017-0021-0 [17] VISE, D., 2007. The google story. Strategic Direction, 23(10). [18] ARNOLD, A. [June 2017]. Why YouTube Stars Influence Millennials More Than Traditional Celebrities [online]. Available from: https://www.forbes.com/sites/under30network/2017/06/20/why-youtube-stars- influence-millennials-more-than-traditional-celebrities/#2d719bb248c6 [Ac- cessed 7 December 2019]. [19] BROOKS, R. [June 2018]. Workplace Spotlight: What Google Gets Right about Company Culture [online]. Available from: https://peakon.com/blog/workplace-culture/google-company-culture [Accessed 17 December 2019]. [20] CANNELLA, J. [August 2015]. What’s the worst part about working at Google? [online]. Available from: https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-worst-part- about-working-at-Google?no_redirect=1 [Accessed 4 January 2020]. [21] GILBERT, B. [August 2019]. Google reportedly has a massive culture problem that’s destroying it from the inside [online]. Available from: https://www.busi- nessinsider.com/google-culture-problems-eric-schmidt-aberrant-geniuses- 2019-8?r=US&IR=T [Accessed 14 December 2019]. [22] GOOGLE, [2019] Diversity report [online]. Available from: https://diversity.google/commitments/ [Accessed 3 January 2020]. [23] MAJUMDER, S. [June 2016]. Employee Motivation: The Google Way! [online]. Available from: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/employee-motivation-google- way-sampurna-majumder [Accessed 16 December 2019]. [24] NOVIANTORO, T. [September 2014]. organizational culture in Google inc. [online]. Available from: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20140904061228- 154884582-organizational-culture-in-google-inc [Accessed 16 December 2019]. [25] PRATAP, A. [January 2019]. An Analysis of Google’s organizational culture [online]. Available from: https://notesmatic.com/an-analysis-of-googles-organizational-culture [Accessed 18 December 2019].

Creativity and Innovation Vol.4 No.1 2020

[26] QUORA, [July 2013]. What are the disadvantages of working at Google? [online]. Available from: https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-disadvantages- of-working-at-Google [Accessed 20 December 2019]. [27] READ, B. [November 2018]. Google Employees Stage a Walkout Over the Sex- ual Harassment Scandal [online]. Available from: https://www.vogue.com/article/google-employees-walkout-sexual-harassment-protests [Accessed 24 De- cember 2019]. [28] SMITHSON, N. [September 2018]. Google’s Organizational Culture & Its Characteristics (An Analysis [online]. Available from: http://pan- more.com/google-organizational-culture-characteristics-analysis [Accessed 7 December 2019].