a case study of organizational culture

• Browse All Articles
• Newsletter Sign-Up

OrganizationalCulture →

No results found in working knowledge.

• Were any results found in one of the other content buckets on the left?
• Try removing some search filters.
• Use different search filters.

• Original Article
• Open access
• Published: 19 December 2017

GOOGLE: a reflection of culture, leader, and management

• Sang Kim Tran 1 , 2  

International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility volume  2 , Article number:  10 ( 2017 ) Cite this article

414k Accesses

12 Citations

4 Altmetric

Metrics details

This paper provides a viewpoint of the culture and subcultures at Google Inc., which is a famous global company, and has a huge engineering staff and many talented leaders. Through its history of development, it has had positive impacts on society; however; there have been management challenges. The Board of Directors (BoDs) developed and implemented a way to measure the abilities of their managers, which helped to identify problems. This paper will analyze the case study of Harvard Business Review, Oxygen Project, and clarify the management problem in Google’s organization. It will also compare Google with Zappos, a much smaller organization, and present how the BoDs of Zappos assesses its culture and subcultures. In this paper, we will recommend eight important points to building an organizational culture that is positive for stable growth of a company. We believe that much of what be learned could be useful to other business leaders, regardless of company scale.

Introduction

In a large society, each company is considered a miniature society (Mawere 2011 ). Similar to large societies with large cultures, small societies also need to build their own cultures. A culture is influenced by many factors and determines if it is a great culture. Corporate culture requires both the attention to the efficiency of production and business and to the relationship among people in the organization closely (Bhagat et al. 2012 ). Regardless if it is a large or a small organization, it must encounter issues of cooperation among individuals and groups. There are many factors leading to the success of business process re-engineering in higher education (BPR), the main four elements are culture, processes, structure, and technology. Culture is listed as number one (Ahmad et al. 2007 ). Hence, culture becomes the most important factor to the success of the development of a business. Organizational culture is the set of shared beliefs (Steiber and Alänge 2016 ), values, and norms that influence the way members think, feel, and behave. Culture is created by means of terminal and instrumental values, heroes, rites and rituals, and communication networks (Barman n.d. ). The primary methods of maintaining organizational culture are through the socialization process by which an individual learns the values, expected behaviors, and necessary social knowledge to assume their roles in the organization. In addition, (Gupta and Govindarajan 2000 ) and Fig.  1 in (Ismail Al-Alawi et al. 2007 ) illustrates that culture was established by six major factors, such as information systems, people, process, leadership, rewarding system, and organization structure. Therefore, there is a wide variety of combined and sophisticated cultures in the workplace, especially in big corporations like Google, Facebook, Proctor & Gamble, etc. Each organization tends to have a common goal, which is to create a culture that is different from other companies and to promote their teams to be creative in developing a distinctive culture (Stimpson and Farquharson 2014 ). Clearly, we can see that Google’s culture is different than others. What makes this company unique and different from others, as well as the dominant cultures and subcultures existing at this company? How do leadership behaviors impact the organizational culture? By operating a case study of a Harvard Business Review to analyze its organizational culture, subsequently, having compared it with Zappos’ culture, this paper will clarify the similarities and differences in managing organizational cultures between them and consider whether the solutions for the problems can be applied to other business models, and for tomorrow leaders or not?

Trends of using product by information searching

Company overview

This part shows how Google became famous in the world and its culture and subcultures made it a special case for others to take into consideration. Google is one of the few technology companies which continue to have one of the fastest growth rates in the world. It began by creating a search engine that combined PageRank system, developed by Larry Page (ranking the importance of websites based on external links), and Web search engine, created by Sergey Brin (accessing a website and recording its content), two co-founders of the company (Jarvis 2011 ; Downes 2007 ). Google’s achievements absolutely do not come from any luck. Google has made extra efforts in creating an index of a number of websites, which have been up to 25 billion websites. This also includes 17 million images and one billion messages to Usenet group (Downes 2007 ). Besides searching for websites, Google users are able to search for PDF files, PostScript, documents, as well as Microsoft, Lotus, PowerPoint and Shockwave files. Google processes nearly 50% of search queries all over the world. Moreover, it is the number one search option for web users and is one of the top five websites on the Internet, which have more than 380 million users and 28 billion visits every month, and more than 50% of access from countries outside the US (Desjardins 2017 ). Google’s technology is rather special: it can analyze millions of different variables of users and businesses who place advertisements. It then connects them with millions of potential advertisements and gives messages of advertisement, which is closest to objects in less than one second. Thus, Google has the higher rate of users clicking advertisements than its opponent Yahoo, from 50 to 100%, and it dominates over 70% market share of paid advertisements (Rosenberg 2016 ). Google’s self-stated mission: “to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful (Alves n.d. ).” Nowadays, it is believed that people in the world like “Google” with words “the useful-lively information storage”.

Predominant culture at Google

The dominant culture in the organization depends on the environment in which the company operates the organization’s objectives, the belief system of the employees, and the company’s management style. Therefore, there are many organizational cultures (Schein 2017 ). The Exhibit 3.1 at page 39 in (Schein 2009 ) provides what culture is about. For example, employee follows a standard procedure with a strict adherence to hierarchy and well-defined individual roles and responsibilities. Those in competitive environments, such as sales may forget strict hierarchies and follow a competitive culture where the focus is on maintaining strong relationships with external parties. In this instance, the strategy is to attain competitive advantages over the competition. The collaborative culture is yet another organizational way of life. This culture presents a decentralized workforce with integrated units working together to find solutions to problems or failure.

Why do many large companies buy its innovation? Because its dominant culture of 99% defect-free operational excellence squashes any attempts at innovation, just like a Sumo wrestler sitting on a small gymnast (Grossman-Kahn and Rosensweig 2012 ). They cannot accept failures. In fact, failure is a necessary part of innovation and Google took this change by Oxygen Project to measure the abilities of their multicultural managers. This means that Google itself possesses multiple different cultures (see Google’s clips). Like Zappos, Google had established a common, organizational culture for the whole offices that are distinctive from the others. The predominant culture aimed at Google is an open culture, where everybody and customer can freely contribute their ideas and opinions to create more comfortable and friendly working environment (Hsieh 2010a ).

The fig.  2 .1 in chapter two of (Schein 2009 ) and page 17 in part one of (Schein 2017 ) provide us three levels of culture which are Artifacts, Espoused values and Underlying assumptions helping us to understand the culture at Google. At page 84, in (Schein 2009 ), the “artifacts” are identified such as dress codes, level of formality in authority relationships, working hours, meeting (how often, how run, timing), how are decisions made, communication, social events, jargon, uniforms, identity symbols, rites and rituals, disagreements and conflicts, balance between work and family . It seems that Google is quite open in these artifacts by showing a respect for uniform and national culture of each staff individually and giving them the right to wear traditional clothes.

Ad Blocking Incidence

Working at Google, employees enjoy free food served throughout the day, a volleyball court, a swimming pool, a car wash, an oil change, a haircut, free health care, and many other benefits. The biggest benefit for the staff is to be picked up on the day of work. As assessed by many traffic experts, the system set up by Google is considered to be a great transport network. Tad Widby, a project manager and a traffic system researcher throughout the United States, said: “I have not seen any larger projects in the Bay Area as well as in urban areas across the country” (Helft 2007 ). Of course, it is impossible for Google to “cover up the sky”, so Yahoo also started implementing the bus project for employees in 2005. On peak days, Yahoo’s bus also took off. Pick up about 350 employees in San Francisco, as well as Berkeley, Oakland, etc. These buses run on biofuels and have Wi-Fi coverage. Yet, Danielle Bricker, the Yahoo bus coordinator of Yahoo, has also admitted that the program is “indirectly” inspired by Google’s initiative (Helft 2007 ). Along with that, eBay recently also piloted shuttle bus transfers at five points in San Francisco. Some other corporations are also emerging ideas for treatment of staff is equally unique. Facebook is an example, instead of facilitating employees far from the workplace; it helps people in the immediate neighborhood by offering an additional $10,000 for an employee to live close to the pillar within 10 miles, nearby the Palo Alto Department (Hall 2015 ).

When it comes to Google, people often ask what the formula for success is. The answer here is the employees of Google. They create their own unique workplace culture rules to create an effective work environment for their employees. And here are the most valuable things to learn from Google’s corporate culture (Scott 2008 ) that we should know:

Tolerate with mistakes and help staff correct

At Google, paying attention to how employees work and helping them correct mistakes is critical. Instead of pointing out the damage and blaming a person who caused the mistake, the company would be interested in what the cause of the problem was and how to fix it as quickly and efficiently as possible.

Also as its culture, we understand that if we want to make breakthroughs in the workplace, we need to have experimentation, failure and repeat the test. Therefore, mistakes and failures are not terrible there. We have the right to be wrong and have the opportunity to overcome failure in the support of our superiors and colleagues. Good ideas are always encouraged at Google. However, before it is accepted and put into use, there is a clear procedure to confirm whether it is a real new idea and practical or not?

Exponential thought

Google developed in the direction of a holding company - a company that does not directly produce products or provide services but simply invest in capital by buying back capital. In the company, the criteria for setting the ten exponential function in lieu of focusing only on the change in the general increase. This approach helps Google improve its technology and deliver great products to consumers continuously.

Of course, every company wants to hire talented people to work for them. However, being talented is an art in which there must be voluntary work and enthusiasm for the work of the devotees. At page 555 in (Saffold 1988 ) illustrated that distinctive cultures dramatically influencing performance do exist. Likewise, Google, Apple, Netflix, and Dell are 40% more productive than the average company which attracts top-tier employees and high performers (Vozza 2017 ). Recognizing this impact, Google created a distinctive corporate culture when the company attracted people from prestigious colleges around the world (West 2016 ; Lazear and Gibbs 2014 ).

Build a stimulating work environment

When it comes to the elements that create creativity and innovation, we can easily recognize that the working environment is one of the most important things. Google has succeeded in building an image of a creative working. Google offices are individually designed, not duplicated in any type of office. In fact, working environment at Google is so comfortable so that employees will not think of it as a working room, with a full area of ​​work, relaxation, exercise, reading, watching movies. Is the orientation of Google’s corporate culture to stimulate creativity and to show interest in the lives of employees so that volunteers contribute freely (Battelle 2011 )?

Subculture is also a culture, but for a smaller group or community in a big organization (Crosset and Beal 1997 ). Google, known as the global company with many more offices, so there are many subcultures created among groups of people who work together, from subcultures among work groups to subcultures among ethnic groups and nations, multi-national groups, as well as multiple occupations, functions, geographies, echelons in the hierarchy and product lines. For example, six years ago, when it bought 100 Huffys for employees to use around the sprawling campus, has since exploded into its own subculture. Google now has a seven-person staff of bicycle mechanics that maintains a fleet of about 1300 brightly-colored Google bikes. The company also encourages employees to cycle to work by providing locker rooms, showers and places to securely park bikes during working hours. And, for those who want to combine meetings with bike-riding, Googlers can use one of several seven-person (Crowley 2013 ).

Leadership influences on the culture at Google

From the definition of leadership and its influence on culture; so what does leader directly influence the culture existed? According to Schein, “culture and leadership are two sides of the same coin and one cannot understand one without the other”, page three in (Schein 2009 ). If one of us has never read the article “Google and the Quest to create a better boss” in the New York Times, it is listed in a priority reading. It breaks the notion that managers have no change. The manager really makes a difference (Axinn 1988 ; Carver 2011 ). In fact, a leader has a massive impact on the culture of the company, and Google is not an exception. The leaders of Google concerned more about the demands and abilities of each individual, the study of the nature of human being, an appreciation their employees as their customers. At Google, the founders thought they could create a company that people would want to work at when creating a home-like environment. It is real that they focus on the workplace brings the comfort to staff creatively and freely (Lebowitz 2013 ).

In my opinion, a successful business cannot be attributed solely from a single star; that needs the brightness of all employees. It depends very much on the capacity and ability to attract talented people. It is the way in which the leader manages these talents, is the cornerstone of corporate culture. One thing that no one can deny is that a good leader must be a creator of a corporate culture so that the employees can maximize capabilities themselves (Driscoll and McKee 2007 ; Kotter 2008 ).

To brief, through the view of Google’s culture, BoDs tended and designed to encourage loyalty and creativity, based on an unusual organizational culture because culture is not only able to create an environment, but it also adapts to diverse and changes circumstances (Bulygo 2013 ).

Company growth and its impact

“Rearrange information around the world, make them accessible everywhere and be useful.” This was one of the main purposes set by Larry Page and Sergey Brin when they first launched Google on September 4th, 1998, as a private company (Schmidt and Rosenberg 2014 ). Since then, Google has expanded its reach, stepped into the mobile operating system, provided mapping services and cloud computing applications, launched its own hardware, and prepared it to enter the wearable device market. However, no matter how varied and rich these products are, they are all about the one thing, the root of Google: online searching.

1998–2001: Focus on search

In its early years, Google.com was simply one with extreme iconic images: a colorful Google logo, a long text box in the middle of the screen, a button to execute. One button for searching and the other button are “I’m feeling lucky” to lead users to a random Google site. By May 2000, Google added ten additional languages to Google.com , including French, German, Italian, Swedish, Finnish, Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, Norwegian and Danish, etc. This is one of the milestones in Google’s journey into the world. Google.com is available in over 150 languages (Scott 2008 ; Lee 2017 ).

2001–2007: Interface card

A very important event with Google around this time was the sale of shares to the public (IPO). In October 2003, Microsoft heard news of the IPO, so it quickly approached Google to discuss a buyout or business deal. Nevertheless, that intention was not materialized. In 2004, it was also the time when Google held a market share of 84.7% globally through collaboration with major Internet companies, such as Yahoo, AOL, and CNN. By February 2004, Yahoo stopped working with Google and separately stood out for engine search. This has led Google to lose some market share, but it has shown the importance and distinctness of Google. Nowadays, the term “Google” has been used as a verb just by visiting Google.com and doing an online search (Smith 2010 ). Not stopping at the homepage search, Google’s interface tag began to be brought to Gmail and Calendar with the links at the top of the page. Google homepage itself continues to use this style.

In 2006, Google also made an important acquisition to buy YouTube for $1.65 billion (Burgess and Green 2013 ). However, the company decided to keep YouTube as a separate brand and not to include it in Google Video search. Thanks to the backing of an Internet industry giant, YouTube has grown to become the world’s largest online video sharing service (Cha et al. 2007 ).

2007–2012: Navigation bar, Google menu, Google now

Google began to deploy a new navigation bar located at the edge of the screen. It includes links to a place where to look for photos, videos, news, maps, as well as buttons to switch to Gmail, Calendar, and other services developed by the company. In the upper left corner, Google added a box displaying Google + notifications and user accounts’ image. Google Now not only appeared on Android and it’s also brought to Chrome on a computer as well as iOS. All have the same operating principle, and the interface card still appears as Android it is.

2013–2014: Simplified interface

Google has moved all of the icons that lead to its other applications and services to an App Drawer button in the upper right hand, at the corner of the screen. In addition, Google.com also supports better voice search through the Chrome browser. Google has experimented with other markets, such as radio and print publications, and in selling advertisements from its advertisers within offline newspapers and magazines. As of November 2014, Google operates over 70 offices over 40 countries (Jarvis 2011 ; Vise 2007 ).

2014–2017: Chrome development and facing challenges

In 2015, Google would turn HTTPS into the default. The better website is, the more users will trust search engine. In 2016, Google announced Android version 7, introduced a new VR platform called Daydream, and its new virtual assistant, Google Assistant.

Most of Google’s revenue comes from advertising (Rosenberg 2016 ). However, this “golden” business is entering a difficult period with many warning signs of its future. Google Search is the dominant strength of Google and bringing great revenue for the company. Nonetheless, when Amazon surpassed Google to become the world’s leading product in the search engine in last December, this advantage began to wobble. This is considered a fatal blow to Google when iOS devices account for 75% of their mobile advertising revenue (Rosenberg 2016 ).

By 2016, the number of people installing software to block ads on phones has increased 102% from 2015. Figure  1 illustrates that by the year’s end, about 16% of smart phone users around the world blocked their ads whilst surfing the web. These were also two groups having the most time on the Internet, high-earners and young people; however, these people have disliked ads (see Fig. 1 ).

Figure  2 shows the young people have the highest ad blocking rates. It is drawing a gloomy picture for the sustainable development of the online advertising industry in general and Google in particular. Therefore, in early 2017, Google has strategies to build an ad blocking tool, built into the Chrome browser. This tool allows users to access ads that have passed the “Coalition for Better Ads” filter so as to limit the sense of discomfort (see Fig. 2 ).

For the company impact, the history shows that speedy development of Google creates both economic and social impacts to followers in a new way of people connection (Savitz 2013 ). In this modern world, it seems that people cannot spend a day without searching any information in Google (Chen et al. 2014 ; Fast and Campbell 2004 ), a tool serves human information seeking needs. Even though when addressing this paper, it is also in need the information from Google search and uses it as a supporting tool. Nobody can deny the convenience of Google as a fast and easy way to search (Schalkwyk et al. 2010 ; Jones 2001 ; Langville and Meyer 2011 ).

Research question and methodology

In order to get the most comprehensive data and information for this case analysis, a number of methods are used, including:

Research data and collect information were mostly from the Harvard Study (Project Oxygen), which has been selected because it is related to the purpose of our study.

Data collection and analysis has been taken from Google Scholar and various websites related researches. We look at the history of appearance, development, and recognize the impacts of this company, as well as the challenges and the way the Board of Directors measures the abilities of their manager when the problem is found.

Analyzing: It was begun by considering expectations from the Harvard Study. Subsequently, considering the smaller organization (Zappos) in comparison of how its cultures and subcultures are accessed as well. Since then, the paper has clarified the management problem that Google and Zappos confront and deal with it so as to help other businesses apply this theoretical practice and achieve its goal beyond expectations.

In our paper, we mainly use the inductive method approach by compiling and describing the other authors’ theories of corporate culture, especially Google and Zappos in merging and comparing, analyzing them and making our own results.

From the aspects of the research, the questions are suggested as below:

What is the most instrumental element found from the Harvard study?

Is there any difference and similarity between a huge company and a smaller enterprise in perspective of culture and subculture?

What makes Google different from others, the dominant cultures as well as subcultures existing? How do leadership behaviors impact on the organizational culture?

How organizational culture impacts on business achievements?

The Harvard study

Project oxygen summary.

This project began in 2009 known as “the manager project” with the People and Innovation Lab (PiLab) team researching questions, which helped the employee of Google become a better manager. The case study was conducted by Garvin (2013) about a behavior measurement to Google’s manager, why managers matter and what the best manager s do. In early days of Google, there are not many managers. In a flat structure, most employees are engineers and technical experts. In fact, in 2002 a few hundred engineers reported to only four managers. But over time and out of necessity, the number of managers increased. Then, in 2009, people and team culture at Google noticed a disturbing trend. Exit interview data cited low satisfaction with their manager as a reason for leaving Google. Because Google has accessed so much online data, Google’s statisticians are asked to analyze and identify the top attributes of a good manager mentioned with an unsolved question: “Do managers matter?” It always concerns all stakeholders at Google and requires a data-based survey project called Project Oxygen to clarify employees’ concern, to measure key management behaviors and cultivate staff through communication and training (Bryant 2011 ; Garvin et al. 2013 ). Research −1 Exit Interviews, ratings, and semiannual reviews. The purpose is to identify high-scoring managers and low-scoring managers resulted in the former, less turnover on their teams, and its connection (manager quality and employee’s happiness). As for “what the best managers do”, Research-2 is to interview high and low scoring managers and to review their performance. The findings with 8 key behaviors illustrated by the most effective managers.

The Oxygen Project mirrors the managers’ decision-making criteria, respects their needs for rigorous analysis, and makes it a priority to measure impact. In the case study, the findings prove that managers really have mattered. Google, initially, must figure out what the best manager is by asking high and low scoring managers such questions about communication, vision, etc. Its project identifies eight behaviors (Bulygo 2013 ; Garvin et al. 2013 ) of a good manager that considered as quite simple that the best manager at Google should have. In a case of management problem and solution, as well as discussing four- key theoretical concepts, they will be analyzed, including formal organizational training system, how culture influences behavior, the role of “flow” and building capacity for innovation, and the role of a leader and its difference from the manager.

Formal organizational training system to create a different culture: Ethical culture

If the organizational culture represents “how we do things around here,” the ethical culture represents “how we do things around here in relation to ethics and ethical behavior in the organization” (Key 1999 ). Alison Taylor (The Five Levels of an Ethical Culture, 2017) reported five levels of an ethical culture, from an individual, interpersonal, group, intergroup to inter-organizational (Taylor 2017 ). In (Nelson and Treviño 2004 ), ethical culture should be thought of in terms of a multi-system framework included formal and informal systems, which must be aligned to support ethical judgment and action. Leadership is essential to driving the ethical culture from a formal and informal perspective (Schwartz 2013 ; Trevino and Nelson 2011 ). Formally, a leader provides the resources to implement structures and programs that support ethics. More informally, through their own behaviors, leadership is a role model whose actions speak louder than their words, conveying “how we do things around here.” Other formal systems include selection systems, policies and codes, orientation and training programs, performance management systems, authority structures, and formal decision processes. On the informal side are the organization’s role models and heroes, the norms of daily behavior, organizational rituals that support or do not support ethical conduct, the stories people tell about the organization and their implications for conduct, and the language people use, etc. Is it okay to talk about ethics? Or is ethical fading the norm?

The formal and informal training is very important. The ethical context in organizations helps the organizational culture have a tendency to the positive or negative viewpoints (Treviño et al. 1998 ). The leader should focus on providing an understanding of the nature and reasons for the organization’s values and rules, on providing an opportunity for question and challenge values for sincerity/practicality, and on teaching ethical decision-making skills related to encountered issues commonly. The more specific and customized training, the more effective it is likely to be. Google seemed to apply this theory when addressed the Oxygen Project.

How culture influences behavior

Whenever we approach a new organization, there is no doubt that we will try to get more about the culture of that place, the way of thinking, working, as well as behavior. And it is likely that the more diverse culture of a place is, the more difficult for outsiders to assess its culture becomes (Mosakowski 2004 ).

Realizing culture in (Schein 2009 ) including artifacts, espoused valued and shared underlying assumptions. It is easier for outsiders to see the artifacts (visual objects) that a group uses as the symbol for a group; however, it does not express more about the espoused values, as well as tacit assumptions. In (Schein et al. 2010 ), the author stated: “For a culture assessment to be valuable, it must get to the assumptions level. If the client system does not get to assumptions, it cannot explain the discrepancies almost always surface between the espoused values and the observed behavioral artifacts” (Schein et al. 2010 ). Hence, in order to be able to assess other cultures well, it is necessary for us to learn each other’s languages, as well as adapt to a common language. Moreover, we also need to look at the context of working, the solution for shared problems because these will facilitate to understand the culture better.

According to the OCP (Organizational Culture Profile) framework (Saremi and Nejad 2013 ), an organization is with possessing the innovation of culture, flexible and adaptable with fresh ideas, which is figured by flat hierarchy and title. For instance, Gore-Tex is an innovative product of W. L. Gore & Associates Inc., considered as the company has the most impact on its innovative culture (Boudreau and Lakhani 2009 ). Looking at the examples of Fast Company, Genentech Inc., and Google, they also encourage their employees to take challenges or risks by allowing them to take 20% of their time to comprehend the projects of their own (Saremi and Nejad 2013 ). In (Aldrich n.d. ), it is recorded that 25%–55% of employees are fully encouraged and giving a maximum value.

The famous quote by Peter Drucker , “Culture eats strategy for Breakfast” at page 67 has created a lot of interest in (Manning and Bodine 2012 ; Coffman and Sorensen 2013 ; Bock 2015 ). Despite we all know how important culture is, we have successively failed to address it (O'Reilly et al. 1991 ). The organizational research change process from the view of Schein ( 2009 ); it is a fact that whenever an organization has the intention of changing the culture, it really takes time. As we all acknowledge, to build an organizational culture, both leader and subordinate spend most of their time on learning, relearning, experiencing, as well as considering the most appropriate features. Sometimes, some changes are inevitable in terms of economic, political, technological, legal and moral threats, as well as internal discomfort (Kavanagh and Ashkanasy 2006 ; Schein 1983 ). As the case in (Schein 2009 ), when a CEO would like to make an innovation which is proved no effective response, given that he did not get to know well about the tacit implications at the place he has just come. It is illustrated that whatsoever change should need time and a process to happen (Blog 2015 ; Makhlouk and Shevchuk 2008 ). In conclusion, a new culture can be learned (Schein 1984 ), but with an appropriate route and the profits for all stakeholders should be concerned by the change manager (Sathe 1983 ).

It is true that people’s behavior managed by their types of culture (Kollmuss and Agyeman 2002 ). All tacit assumptions of insiders are not easy for outsiders to grasp the meaning completely (Schein 2009 ). It is not also an exception at any organization. Google is an example of the multicultural organization coming from various regions of the world, and the national or regional cultures making this multicultural organization with an official culture for the whole company.

In this case, the organizational culture of Google has an influence on the behaviors of manager and employee. In addition, as for such a company specializes in information technology, all engineers prefer to work on everything with data-evidence to get them involved in the meaningful survey about manager (Davenport et al. 2010 ). Eventually, Google discovered 8 good behaviors of manager, which effect to the role of “flow” also (Bulygo 2013 ; Garvin et al. 2013 ).

The role of the “flow” and building capacity for innovation

More and more people are using the term of “patient flow”. This overview describes patient flow and links to theories about flow. Patient flow underpins many improvement tools and techniques. The term “flow” describes the progressive movement of products, information, and people through a sequence of the process. In simple terms, flow is about uninterrupted movement (Nave 2002 ), like driving steadily along the motorway without interruptions or being stuck in a traffic jam. In healthcare, flow is the movement of patients, information or equipment between departments, office groups or organizations as a part of a patient’s care pathway (Bessant and Maher 2009 ). In fact, flow plays a vital role in getting stakeholders involved in working creatively and innovatively (Adams 2005 ; Amabile 1997 ; Forest et al. 2011 ). An effective ethical leader must create flow in work before transfer it to employees for changing the best of their effort to maintain, keep and develop “flow” in an engineering job, which job be easier to get stress. Definitely, Google gets it done very well.

Acknowledgements

Thanks to the knowledge from my Master course, a credit of managing culture which helps me to write this paper. The author also gratefully acknowledges the helpful comments and suggestions of the reviewers and Associate Professor Khuong- Ho Van, who provided general technical help that all have improved the article.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Center for Predoctoral Training, Vietnam National University–HCMC, Quarter 6, Linh Trung Ward, Thu Duc District, Ho Chi Minh, HCMC, Vietnam

Sang Kim Tran

Department of Research, Galaxy, 4/62 Nguyen Thi Minh Khai, Hoa Lan 1, Thuan Giao Ward, Binh Duong, 820000, Viet Nam

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

The completed paper is solely written by the corresponding author.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sang Kim Tran .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

I obviously inform that there is not any competing interest to this paper.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Tran, S.K. GOOGLE: a reflection of culture, leader, and management. Int J Corporate Soc Responsibility 2 , 10 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40991-017-0021-0

Download citation

Received : 16 May 2017

Accepted : 15 November 2017

Published : 19 December 2017

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s40991-017-0021-0

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Organizational culture
• Management style
• Oxygen project

• Harvard Business School →
• Faculty & Research →
• March 2020 (Revised August 2020)
• HBS Case Collection

Culture at Google

• Format: Print
• | Language: English
• | Pages: 34

About The Author

Nien-he Hsieh

Related work.

• Faculty Research
• Culture at Google  By: Nien-hê Hsieh, Amy Klopfenstein and Sarah Mehta

Advertisement

Organizational Culture for Innovation: A Case Study Involving an University Faculty

• Published: 07 October 2022
• Volume 14 , pages 4675–4706, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

• Jairo Iván Orozco Arias   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-2337-8941 1 &
• Olga Lucía Anzola Morales   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4865-9125 2  

465 Accesses

Explore all metrics

This research was made in the faculty of Social Communication and Journalism of a Colombian private university, renowned for its high-quality standards, with the goal to identify the actual characteristics of its organizational culture and its relationship in favor of innovation. This study was made with a mixed approach and involved compiled information gathered by using two instruments: the Inventory of Organizational Culture in Education Institutions (ICOE), designed by Marcone and Martin in  Psycothema, 15 (2), 292–299 ( 2003 ), and the TB Test, designed by Bridges in  The character of organizations: Using personality type in organization development . Davies-Black Publishers ( 2000 ), as well as semi-structured interviews done to professors and administrative staff. The gathered information was compared with both theoretical models of cultural analysis built for superior education organizations and representative researchers in the area of organizational culture for innovation, a field of study broad and consolidated nowadays but one that is not usually geared toward understanding and explaining the relationship between organizational culture and innovation in high education organizations. Our findings let us make a characterization of the organizational culture of the faculty and identify its cultural strengths and weaknesses regarding adopting and favoring innovation. Also, this empirical research adds up to an effort to make studies regarding organizational culture for innovation specifically geared toward high-education organizations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Source: Martins and Martins ( 2002 )

Source: Author’s own using data from Amar and Juneja ( 2008 )

Similar content being viewed by others

Digital transformation: a review, synthesis and opportunities for future research

Reactions towards organizational change: a systematic literature review

An overview of hofstede-inspired country-level culture research in international business since 2006, data availability.

All data analyzed in this study is available for review. If interested, please write an email to the authors, stating your interest in reviewing the data and the purpose of your review.

Material Availability

Afsar, B., & Umrani, W. (2020). Transformational leadership and innovative work behavior The role of motivation to learn, task complexity and innovation climate. European Journal of Innovation Management, 23 (3), 402–428.

Article   Google Scholar  

Ahmed, P. (1998). Culture and climate for innovation. European Journal of Innovation Management, 1 (1), 30–43.

Aktouf, O. (2002). El simbolismo y la cultura organizacional. De los abusos conceptuales a las lecciones de campo. Revista Ad-Minister, 1 , 65–94.

Google Scholar  

Anzola-Morales, O., Marín-Idárraga, D. & Cuartas, J. (2017). Fundamentación teórica de la cultura, la estructura y la estrategia de la organización. Referentes para el análisis y diseño organizacional. Bogotá: Universidad Externado de Colombia.

Anzola-Morales, O. (2019). Lo tecnológico, la cultura digital y los procesos de cambio. In N. Velásquez, M. Colin & O. Hernández (comps.). Las tecnologías de información como base de la competitividad en las organizaciones , (pp. 113–144) Bogotá: Universidad Externado de Colombia.

Amar, A., & Juneja, J. (2008). A descriptive model of innovation and creativity in organizations: A synthesis of research and practice. Knowledge Management Research y Practise, 6 (4), 298–311.

Arocena, R., & Sutz, J. (2003). Subdesarrollo e innovación: Navegando contra el viento . OEI / Cambridge University Press.

Azeem, M., Ahmed, M., Haider, S., & Sajjad, M. (2021). Expanding competitive advantage through organizational culture, knowledge sharing and organizational innovation. Technology in Society, 66 , 101635.

Boyd, D. (2020). Explore the method: Getting started. Retrieved July 2020, from https://drewboyd.com/getting-started/

Bridges, W. (2000). The character of organizations: Using personality type in organization development . Davies-Black Publishers.

Calderón, G., & Naranjo, J. C. (2007). Perfil cultural de las empresas innovadoras. Un estudio de caso en empresas metalmecánicas. Cuadernos De Administración., 20 (34), 161–189.

Cai, W., Gu, J., & Wu, J. (2021). How CEO passion promotes firm Innovation: The mediating role of Top Management Team (TMT) creativity and the moderating role of organizational culture. Current Psychology , 1–17.

Cárdenas, C., Farías, G., & Méndez, G. (2017). ¿Existe relación entre la Gestión Administrativa y la Innovación Educativa?. Un estudio de caso en la educación superior. REICE Revista Iberoamericana Sobre Calidad, Eficacia y Cambio En Educación, 15 (1), 19–35.

Daher, N. (2016). The relationship between organizational culture and organizational innovation. International Journal of Business and Public Administration, 13 (2), 1–15.

Dombrowski, C., Kim, J. Y., Desouza, K. C., Braganza, A., Papagari, S., Baloh, P., & Jha, S. (2007). Elements of innovative cultures. Knowledge and Process Management, 14 (3), 190–202.

Drucker, P. (2014). Innovation and Entrepreneurship . Routledge.

Book   Google Scholar  

Felizzola, Y., & Anzola-Morales, O. (2017). Proposal of an organizational culture model for innovation. Cuadernos De Administración, 33 (59), 20–31.

Fernández, E., Montes, J., & Vásquez, C. (1998). Los recursos intangibles como factores de competitividad de la empresa. Dirección y Organización, 20 , 83–98.

Freeman, C. (2002). Continental, national and sub-national innovation systems complementarity and economic growth. Research Policy, 31 (2), 191–211.

García, C. (2018). La mercantilización de la educación superior en Colombia. Revista Educación y Humanismo, 20 (34), 36–58.

Gaus, N., Tang, M., & Akil, M. (2019). Organisational culture in higher education: Mapping the way to understanding cultural research. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 43 (6), 848–860.

González, A. (2001). Innovación organizacional. Retos y Perspectivas . Cuba: CIPS. Retrieved October 8, 2018, from http://biblioteca.clacso.edu.ar/Cuba/cips/20120823042336/gonza4.pdf

González-Limas, W., Bastidas-Jurado, C., Figueroa-Chaves, H., Zambrano-Guerrero, C., & Matabanchoy-Tulcán, S. (2018). Revisión sistemática de las concepciones de cultura organizacional. Universidad y Salud, 20 (2), 200–214.

Hatch, M. (1993). The dynamics of organizational culture. Academy of Management Review, 18 (4), 657–693.

Hasanefendic, S., Birkholz, J., Horta, H., & Van der Sidje, P. (2017). Individuals in action: Bringing about innovation in higher education. European Journal of Higher Education, 7 (2), 101–119.

Issa-Fontalvo, S. M. (2017). Habilidades del liderazgo para una cultura de innovación en la gerencia de las universidades del distrito de Santa Marta. Revista Academia y Virtualidad, 10 (1), 56–67.

Jamrog, J., Vickers, M., & Bear, D. (2006). Build­ing and sustaining culture that supports inno­vation. Human Resources Planning, 29 (3), 9–19.

Janssen, O. (2000). Job demands, perceptions of effort-reward fairness and innovative work behaviour. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73 (3), 287–302.

Jasso, J., Del Valle, M., & Núñez, I. (2017). Innovation and development: A revision the Latin American thought. Academia. Revista Latinoamericana De Administración, 30 (4), 444–458.

Jenkins, M. (2014). Innovate or Imitate?. The role of collective beliefs in competences in competing firms. Long Range Planning, 47 (4), 173–185.

Jick, T. (1979). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24 , 602–611.

Kezar, A., & Eckel, P. (2002). The effect of institutional culture on change strategies in higher education. The Journal of Higher Education, 73 (4), 435–460.

Khazanchi, S., Lewis, M., & Boyer, K. (2007). Innovation-supportive culture: The impact of organizational values on process innovation. Journal of Operations Management, 25 , 871–884.

Lau, C., & Ngo, H. (2004). The HR system, organizational culture, and product innovation. International Business Review, 13 (6), 685–703.

Lin, Ch., Yeh, J., & Hung, G. (2012). Internal impediments of organizational innovation: An exploratory study. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 3 (2), 185–198.

Marcone, R., & Martín, F. (2003). Construcción y validación de un inventario de cultura organizacional educativa (ICOE). Psycothema, 15 (2), 292–299.

Martin, J. (1992). Cultures in organizations: Three perspectives . Oxford University Press.

Martin, J. (2004). Organizational Culture. Research Paper Series, 1847 , 1–18.

Martins, E., & Martins, N. (2002). An organisational culture model to promote creativity and innovation. Journal of Industrial Psychology, 28 (4), 58–65.

Martins, E., & Terblanche, F. (2003). Building organisational culture that stimulates creativity and innovation. European Journal of Innovation Management, 6 (1), 64–74.

McLean, L. (2005). Organizational’s Culture in­fluence on creativity and innovation: A review of the literature and implications for human resources development. Advances in Develo­ping Human Resources, 7 (2), 226–246.

Máynez-Guadarrama, A., Cavazos-Arroyo, J., & Nuño-De la Parra, J. (2012). La influencia de la cultura organizacional y la capacidad de absorción sobre la transferencia de conocimiento tácito intraorganizacional. Estudios Gerenciales, 28 , 191–211.

Morales, M., & León, A. (2013). Adiós a los mitos de la innovación: una guía práctica para innovar en América Latina . San José de Costa Rica: Innovare.

Murray, M., & Steele, J. (2004). Creating, supporting and sustaining a culture of innovation. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 11 (5), 316–322.

Naranjo, J., Jiménez, D., & Sanz, R. (2011). Innovation of imitation? The role of organizational culture. Management Decision, 49 (1), 55–72.

OECD. (2018). Oslo manual 2018: Guidelines for collecting, reporting and using data on innovation . OECD Publishing, Paris/Eurostat.

Pisano, G. (2019). The hard truth about innovative cultures. Harvard Business Review, 97 (1), 62–71.

Pister, M. (2021). Leadership and innovation. How can leaders create innovation-promoting environments in their organisations? European Journal of Marketing and Economics, 4 (2), 42–52.

Prieto, M., Contreras, F., & Espinosa, J. (2020). Liderazgo y comportamiento innovador del trabajador en personal administrativo de una institución educativa. Diversitas: Perspectivas, Psicológicas, 16 (1), 25–35.

Sadegh, M., & Ataei, V. (2012). Organizational culture and innovation culture: Exploring the relationships between constructs. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 33 (5), 494–517.

Sandoval, J. (2014). Los procesos de cambio organizacional y la generación de valor. Estudios Gerenciales, 30 (131), 162–171.

Sharifirad, M., & Ataei, V. (2012). Organizational culture and innovation culture: Exploring the relationships between constructs. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 33 (5), 494–517.

Schein, E. (1988). La cultura empresarial y el liderazgo. Una visión dinámica . Plaza y Janes.

Schmitz, A., Urbano, D., Dandolini, G., de Souza, J., & Guerrero, M. (2016). Innovation and entrepreneurship in the academic setting: A systematic literature review. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 13 , 369–395.

Schumpeter, J. (1934). A theory of economic development . McGraw-Hill.

Smircich, L. (1983). Concepts of culture and organizational analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28 (3), 339–358.

TrendHunter.com. (2018). Education Consumer Insights . Retrieved December 2018, from   https://www.trendhunter.com/pro/category/education-trends

Zhu, C. (2015). Organisational culture and technology-enhanced innovation in higher education. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 24 (1), 65–79.

Download references

This research was self-supported and self-funded by the authors.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Faculty of Social Communication-Journalism, Universidad Externado de Colombia, Bogotá, Colombia

Jairo Iván Orozco Arias

Faculty of Business Administration, Universidad Externado de Colombia, Bogotá, Colombia

Olga Lucía Anzola Morales

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

propose a model for innovation-oriented organizational culture in a faculty within a Colombian university.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jairo Iván Orozco Arias .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of the Topical Collection on University and Entrepreneurial Ecosystems

ANNEX 1. Inventory of Organizational Culture in Education Institutions (ICOE) (Marcone & Martin, 2003 )

This questionnaire aims to understand your perception regarding the organizational culture of the Faculty of Social Communication and Journalism. Please, assign a grade from 1 to 5 the following 62 states, being 1 “I disagree completely;” 2 “I disagree;” 3 “neutral;” 4 “I agree;” 5 “I agree completely.”

I believe this faculty offers an environment that motivates students to give the best of themselves.

At the faculty, “being on the look” means to be alert to signals and messages that are generated in the pedagogical process and to act accordingly.

At the faculty, all ideas that change past educational practices are strengthened periodically and formally.

The changes experimented by our faculty, from its beginnings, demonstrate a creative and innovative life.

At the faculty, we value the directors’ efforts to create and keep a good communication system with other faculty members.

The existence of agile and expeditious communication channels guarantee our work’s success.

Directors let us know what is expected from each of us in a clear and explicit way.

Work meetings are announced in advance, in such a way that we know, opportunely, the topics that will be addressed.

In our university life there is a sequence of events that show a close union of the members.

At the faculty, we share the firm commitment to our students’ learning, which drives us toward pedagogical change.

By putting innovative ideas into practice, our leaders publicly express their willingness to change.

At the faculty, we tell how, thanks to our willpower and work, we have overcome the challenges that pedagogical change implies.

We value mistakes as part of our very nature and as a sometimes necessary step for learning.

At the faculty, we share the idea that error is deferred success.

In this faculty, it is common for directors to hearten us frequently, which encourages us to move forward.

In this faculty, every work well done or success of the staff is recorded, carefully and in a timely manner, in their resume.

Our history reveals a permanent learning of the faculty members, which has contributed to the current success achieved.

In this faculty, the directors support the professors in their work initiatives.

Daily conversations reveal our conviction that we will achieve the changes that this faculty requires to move forward.

Pedagogical innovation is constantly and publicly supported by directors.

Many projects, which at one time seemed unfeasible, have become a reality thanks to our efforts.

Opinions about work are well-regarded, no matter where they come from.

The search for consensus is the best way to resolve conflicts that originate in the faculty.

In this faculty we are used to telling each other things clearly and directly.

In the faculty, when there have been differences between professors and directors, positive action has always been taken.

In the faculty, the directors value the opinions and feelings of the staff.

The management style of directors reveals that they consider professors as responsible and capable of taking on challenges.

The directors’ communications clearly reflect what they want to say and do so with deep interest and respect for us.

We have photographs that remind us of the various stages of development we have gone through.

Directors do not miss an opportunity to demonstrate, with their own example, their commitment to the faculty.

At the faculty we act with great security, since we all know the rules of the game that rule our work.

The language used between directors and professors is clear and direct, which facilitates tasks and duties.

Many rumors circulate in the faculty about the impossibility of achieving the changes that positively transform life in this university.

In this faculty it is customary to recognize the efforts of the professors in the educational task.

The credibility of directors has been sustained, over time, in the coherence that they have managed to establish between what they say and what they do.

At the faculty, the work environment fosters autonomy and authenticity, on a level of equality and respect.

Our beliefs are very clearly reflected in the facts of daily life at the faculty.

Our students fully identify with the faculty, which is verified in daily life and in their behavior in public events.

We can easily reconstruct the history of the faculty by studying the existing documents.

In the faculty there is a real concern about the working conditions of all the staff.

At the faculty we think that managers are motivated by our good professional performance.

When we take action, the directors let us know, clearly and directly, that we have their support.

It is customary to promote our students' achievements, no matter how small they may be.

At the faculty we are told, clearly and firmly, that continuous effort is the key to success in our teaching work.

We meet periodically to review the established goals and determine what we have achieved and what we still need to achieve.

At the faculty, stories are told about how, thanks to joint efforts, very difficult goals were achieved.

The goals that are being pursued at this university respond to the demands and expectations of the community.

In the faculty, the directors encourage the participation of all the staff in the achievement of the objectives.

At the faculty, at the beginning of each academic term, the objectives and goals that will guide our efforts are established.

The history of our faculty shows us how the established goals have been achieved over time.

This faculty works to maintain communication that facilitates the integration and cohesion of the staff.

In this university, the professors’ councils constitute instances of study of deep reflection and search for adequate coordination.

The constant effort of directors and professors has made it possible to visualize a promising future.

An open doors policy allows us to participate equally in university life.

In the speeches and acts of university life, the importance of equity is highlighted as a norm of life.

In the faculty there is a recognition of efforts and a fair allocation of rewards.

In this university, when allocating resources, it has always tried to act with equity.

The motto “always do what is right” guides our actions in the daily life of the university.

What sets us apart from other universities is the enthusiasm we put into achieving our goals.

The instructions and guidelines for students, parents, guardians and the public are clear and precise.

In the faculty, before starting a new project, it is customary to create the conditions so that the professors can concentrate on their work.

Past events show us that the achievements reached have originated with the constant effort of professors and directors.

ANNEX 2. Bridges’ Test (Bridges, 2000 )

This questionnaire aims to identify the innovation profile of the organizational culture present in the faculty. Please rate the following 36 questions from 1 to 4, based on what is specified in each question, where the extreme values (1 and 4) imply that there is a strong point of view, while the average values (2 and 3) imply that the point of view is slightly inclined.

Does the faculty pay more attention to the requests of the clients-students or to its internal knowledge on how to work well? – Clients 1 2 3 4 know how to work well

Is the faculty better at producing and delivering goods and services or creating new ones? – Producing 1 2 3 4 creating new ones

What matters more to the faculty: management systems or people’s dedication to their work? – Management systems 1 2 3 4 people’s dedication

What does the faculty like more: to make procedures and policies very clear and explicit or do you prefer to leave people without much detail so that they can work their way within the basic instructions? – Make clear 1 2 3 4 leave without much detail

Can employees openly see how decisions are made in the organization or are decisions hidden from top management and appear mysteriously? – Very open 1 2 3 4 very hidden

Is leadership based on decision-making, taking into account detailed information on facts and events, or is it based on an approach to the fact or event in a schematic way and in general terms? – Detailed information 1 2 3 4 general terms

Is the faculty concerned about fulfilling the roles and functions of people, established effectively, or does it allow people to work based on the full exercise of their talents? – Official roles 1 2 3 4 people’s talents

Would you say that the faculty emphasizes rapid decision-making or waits for all points of view, even if this implies delays? – Rapid decision-making 1 2 3 4 delayed decision-making

Are decisions made based on market data and facts or rather on internal factors such as the experience and beliefs of the directors and the capacities of the faculty? – Market data 1 2 3 4 internal factors

Are the actions of the faculty based on current events and the present, or are they focused more on trends and expectations for the future? – Present 1 2 3 4 future

How decisions are really made in the faculty: with the head (moderated with a bit of humanism) or with the heart (supplemented with information)? – Moderated, with the head 1 2 3 4 balanced, with the heart

If there is an error in the faculty, is it due to hasty decisions or because many options were kept that delayed the decision? – Hasty decisions 1 2 3 4 too many options

In a project or job, do people collaborate naturally from the beginning or do they do it in a forced way and after each one defines the extent of their responsibilities? – From the beginning 1 2 3 4 in a forced way

When the changes have already been discussed, what demands more attention: the monitoring of the steps to achieve the objective or the final result and meet the agreed deadline? – Monitoring of the steps 1 2 3 4 final result

When it comes to staff issues, what is taken more seriously: policies and rules or individual circumstances and situations? – Policies and rules 1 2 3 4 individual circumstances

Are the actions of the faculty based mainly on the priorities and strategies already traced or on the opportunities and signs identified in the market or the environment? – Priorities 1 2 3 4 opportunities

Are the actions of the faculty influenced more by relationships with customers and competitors or are they the result of its identity, of following the organizational mission and culture? – Relationships 1 2 3 4 identity/mission

Is the faculty better at producing reliable products and services or generating ideas and designs whose results are presumed to be good? – Reliable products and services 1 2 3 4 novelty ideas

In the faculty, does the word “communication” mean giving and receiving information or keeping in touch with all the collaborators? – Giving and receiving 1 2 3 4 keeping in touch

Does the faculty work by established procedures and rules or does it work and decide mainly as things happen? – Procedures 1 2 3 4 as things happen

Is the scope of the faculty determined by the external challenges that are presented to it or by the availability of resources? – External challenges 1 2 3 4 resources

Is the form of leadership in the faculty identified more as solid and down to earth or more as intuitive and visionary? – Down to earth 1 2 3 4 visionary

Which is more accurate to describe what is expected of leaders: to act according to rational policies and rules or to act according to their sensitivity and sense of humanity? – Rational policies 1 2 3 4 sensitivity and a sense of humanity

To deal with situations, does the faculty choose between trying to decide as soon as possible or looking for options? – Decide soon 1 2 3 4 look for options

Does the faculty have an open point of view and allow itself to be influenced by the clients-students and the opinion of the employees or does it have a closed point of view and always respond to an already established management system? – Open 1 2 3 4 closed

Is action taken more in a practical and efficient way or in an ingenious and inventive way? – Practical way 1 2 3 4 inventive way

When you think of “what is right,” do you think more of what is logical and rational or what is human and sensible? – Logical and rational 1 2 3 4 human and sensible

Does the faculty in general seek to “hold on to something solid” or “go with the flow”? – Hold on something solid 1 2 3 4 go with the flow

In terms of strategy, is the faculty more focused on satisfying the clients-students and competitors or on the maximum use of the capacities of its employees? – Clients and competitors 1 2 3 4 capacities of its employees

When there are big changes, does the faculty prefer to do them step by step or all at once and in an integral way? – Step by step 1 2 3 4 integral way

Is the structure of the faculty based mainly on the hierarchy and the tasks of the organizational chart or on the relationships of its members? – Based on tasks 1 2 3 4 based on relationships

When planning projects, are deadlines followed and delivery dates met or are schedules made flexible and negotiated according to circumstances? – The plan is followed 1 2 3 4 it is flexible

Does the faculty seek alliances to work with other organizations or does it prefer to face the market on its own? – Works with others 1 2 3 4 goes on its own

Is the faculty better described as clinging to tried and true ways or open to new and uncertain ones? – Clinging to tried ways 1 2 3 4 open to new ways

Which word best describes your leader: criticism or motivation? – Criticism 1 2 3 4 motivation

Finally, are plans made thinking about the future or are they made living day to day? – Future 1 2 3 4 day to day

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Orozco Arias, J., Anzola Morales, O. Organizational Culture for Innovation: A Case Study Involving an University Faculty. J Knowl Econ 14 , 4675–4706 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-022-01069-9

Download citation

Received : 12 January 2022

Accepted : 16 September 2022

Published : 07 October 2022

Issue Date : December 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-022-01069-9

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Organizational culture
• Innovational leadership
• Educational organization

JEL Code Classification

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

MBA Knowledge Base

Business • Management • Technology

Home » Management Case Studies » Case Study: Analysis of Organizational Culture at Google

Case Study: Analysis of Organizational Culture at Google

Google Inc came to life with the two brilliant people as the founder of the company. Those two were Larry Page and Sergey Brin . Both of them are a PhDs holder in computer science in Stanford University California. In their research project, they came out with a plan to make a search engine that ranked websites according to the number of other websites that linked to that site. Before Google was established, search engines had ranked site simply by the number of times the search term searched for appeared on the webpage. By the brilliant mind of Larry and Sergey, they develop the technology called PageRank algorithm . PageRank is a link analysis algorithm that assigns a numerical weighting to each element of a hyperlinked set of document, such as the World Wide Web, with the purpose of measuring its relative importance within the set. All this in-depth research leads to a glorious day which is on September 15, 1997 where Google.com domain was registered. Soon after that, on September 4, 1998, they formally incorporated their company, Google Inc, at a friend’s garage in Menlo Park California. The name Google originates from “Googol” which refers to the mathematical equivalent of the number one followed by a hundred zeros. In March 1999, the company moved into offices at 165 University Avenue in Palo Alto. After that, the company leased a complex of buildings in Mountain View. Ever since then, the location of the headquarter remain unchanged.

Google’s core business is to provide a search engine for the cyber user who would like to go to their desire site. The Google search engine attracted a number of internet users by its sleek and simple design but result in amazing search result. After the initial stage of Google establishing itself in the world, it began selling advertisements associated with the search keywords. The advertisements were text-based in order to maximize the page loading speed. Most of the Google Inc revenue relies on the advertisement and they had been successfully with the help of AdWords and AdSense in their system. After having some experience in the industry, Google itself launched its own free web-based email service, known as Gmail in 2004. This service is established to meet the need of the cyber user in order to store and send their document through online. In the same year, one of the most captivating technologies that Google had launched is the Google Earth. Google Earth is an amazing creation that is a map of the earth based on the satellite image. It requires you to type the desire location that you want to view and it will process the image for you. Furthermore, Google Inc made a new partnership with NASA with even enhances the Google technologies. Google also had its own Google Video which allows user to search the internet for videos. One of the most important things in the Google Inc is that they have a strong organizational culture which brings them closer and stronger compare with other firms. The values that they emphasis on are creativity, simplicity and innovation in order to gain competitive advantage against their competitor.

The Google Culture

Google is well known for their organizational cultures distinctiveness and uniqueness compared to their immediate competitors. On the Google corporate website, they have listed down 10 core principles that guide the actions of the entire organization. These are the values and assumptions shared within the organization. These values are also termed as ‘espoused values’, where it is not necessarily what the organization actually values even though the top executives of the company embrace them.

In Google, the daily organizational life is distinctive and is one that thrives on informal culture. The rituals that portray the organization’s culture as unique and possesses a small-company feel are portrayed daily at lunchtime, where almost all employees eat together at the many various office cafes while at the same time having an open, relaxed conversations with fellow Googlers that come from different teams. Also, because one of the Google culture’s main pillars are the pillar of innovation, every Googler are very comfortable at sharing ideas, thoughts, and opinions with one another in a very informal working environment. Every employee is a hands-on contributor and everyone wears several hats. Sergey and Brin also plays a big part of laying the foundation on what the Google culture is and the founders have continued to maintain the Google Way by organizing a weekly all-hands “TGIF” meetings for employees to pose questions directly at them.

Here are some of a few of their core principles which will provide a look into Google’s management philosophy and the type of culture they want to possess:

In Google, the motivated employees who ‘live’ the Google brand and are aligned to the company call themselves ‘Googlers’. Even former employees of Google have a name which they refer to themselves as ‘Xooglers’. This shows that in Google, their employees are so involved in the organization that they have their own symbolic name that mirrors the organization’s name and image, which is a sure sign of existing strong cultural values that are present within the company.

After tremendous growth in Google, the organization moved from a humble office building in Palo Alto, California back in its early days to its current office complex bought over from Silicon Graphics. The complex is popularly known as the Googleplex, which is a blend of the word ‘Google’ and ‘complex’. Googleplex is the result of a careful selection that serves to establish Google’s unique and individualistic culture in the eyes of the employees and the public. The corporate campus is built to provide a very fun, relaxed and colorful environment both inside and outside. Innovative design decisions provides Google employees 2000 car lots underground so that open spaces above and surrounding the building are filled with unique and interesting architectures that includes an on-site organic garden that supplies produces for Google’s various cafes, a bronze casting of a dinosaur fossil, a sand volleyball court, heated “endless pools” and also electric scooters along with hundreds of bikes scattered throughout the complex for Googlers to get to meetings across campuses. Googleplex is a significant departure from typical corporate campuses, challenging conventional thinking about private and public space. This also points out the alignment of values that are present in Google’s culture such as innovation, fun, laid-back, creativity and uniqueness that clearly shows that their organizational culture is truly unique and different from that of their competitors and other organizations.

Within the Googleplex, a truly attractive, fun and extraordinary workplace environment exists for Google employees. The interior of the headquarters is furnished with items like lava lamps and giant rubber balls while sofas, Google color coded chairs, and pool tables can be found at lounges and bar counters to express Google’s laid-back working atmosphere. The lobby contains a grand piano and a projection of current live Google search queries. The employees’ various needs are also taken care of by facilities such as the 19 cafes on campus which serves a variety of food choices for their diverse workforce, a gym, massage parlor, laundromats, and even micro kitchens, which provides snacks for employees who want a quick bite. This ensures that employees can be more productive and happy without ever leaving the workplace. A manifestation of Google’s creative and innovative culture is shown by the unconventional building design with high ceilings to let natural light in, durable floors made of tiny quartz stones, working British phone booths splashed in Google colors, and lounges that also serve as DIY libraries with cleverly placed low-reach book racks adorned with colorful Lego sets and cubes. All these innovative, creative and colorful designs are symbols of Google’s unique organizational culture that emphasizes on continuous innovation.

Google engages their employees by applying adaptive culture in the organization. From their core competency in search engine technology, Google has responded to customers change in needs by expanding onto the mobile market. The employees analyze, anticipate and seek out the opportunities to improve the organization’s performance by being proactive and quick in coming out with new technologies and solutions for mobile services. It aims to help people all over the world to do more tasks on their phone, not to mention the several different ways to access their Google search engine on a mobile phone. In addition, Google recently entered the smartphone market by launching the Google Nexus One smartphone in response to customer’s increasing need for smartphones, which is gaining ground on popularity because everyone is going mobile in the Information Age. This is the result of Google employees’ common mental model that the organization’s success depends on continuous change to support the stakeholders and also that they are solely responsible for the organization’s performance. The employees also believe that by entering into other markets beyond their core competency, the change is necessary and inevitable to keep pace with an ever changing and volatile technological market.

Google’s organizational culture places a huge importance of trust and transparency by having an informal corporate motto namely “Don’t be evil”. This slogan has become a central pillar to their identity and a part of their self-proclaimed core principles. It also forms the ethical codes of the organization where Google establishes a foundation for honest decision-making that disassociates Google from any and all cheating. Its ethical principles means that Google sets guiding principles for their advertising programs and practices, which is where most of their revenues come from. Google doesn’t breach the trust of its users so it doesn’t accept pop-up advertising, which is a disruptive form of advertisement that hinders with the user’s ability to see the content that they searched. And because they don’t manipulate rankings to put any of their partners higher in their search results or allow anyone to buy their way up the PageRank, the integrity of their search results are not compromised. This way, users trust Google’s objectivity and their ethical principles is one of the reasons why Google’s ad business had become so successful. The founders of Google believe strongly that ‘in the long term we will be better served, as shareholders and in all other ways, by a company that does good things for the world even if we forgo some short term gains.’

Analysis of Google Culture

Satisfied employees not only increase productivity and reduce turnover, but also enhance creativity and commitment. Google is already having a playful variation culture in the organization for the employees. This can enable the employees to have an enjoyment environment and this will be able enhance the relationship between the employees and strengthen their bond to work as a team. An enjoyment environment definitely can let the employees to feel satisfied and subsequently will increase productivity. Apart from that, this will shape a convenient work process for the employees that will smoothen the decision making process for the management team. Google already identified the employees are the organization’s internal customers and this is the reason why it has been constantly giving employees a sense of purpose, enhancing their self-esteem and sense of belonging for being a part of the organization. The company was reorganized into small teams that attacked hundreds of projects all at once. The founders give the employees great latitude, and they take the same latitude for themselves. Eric Schmidt says that Google merely appears to be disorganized. “We say we run the company chaotically. We run it at the edge. This can adapt the culture Google and therefore they can individually to generate the ideas on their own.

On the other hand, Google hires employees that have good academic results but without practical experience and this will be a threat to Google in terms of their organization’s operation. Google is a results-driven organization and if employees with only creative ideas but lacking of skills to realize the ideas they have initially planned, this will absolutely reduce the productivity of the organizations. Google had been public listed on year 2004 and therefore Google had to take the shareholders’ views into consideration before making any decision. The shareholders had been strongly emphasizing on reducing the employee benefits due to the high cost invested on it. This leads to the organizational culture would be degraded and the employees would feel less satisfied and affect their produced results. Employees are very important asset the Google while the shareholders also the contributor of funds for Google. The management team has to weight the importance of both of the stakeholders for the Google as this will create a different organizational culture .

Related posts:

• Case Study: Organizational Structure and Culture of Virgin Group
• Case Study: Google’s Competitive Advantage
• Case Study: Google’s Acquisition of Motorola Mobility
• Case Study: Google’s Quest for Competitive Advantage
• Case Study of Johnson & Johnson: Creating the Right Fit between Corporate Communication and Organizational Culture
• Case Study: Google’s Recruitment and Selection Process
• Case Study: Success Story of Google Search Engine
• Case Study of Starbucks: Creating a New Coffee Culture
• Case Study of Procter and Gamble (P&G): Structure and Culture
• Case Study: Henry Ford’s Contributions to Organizational Behavior and Leadership

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

The New Analytics of Culture

• Matthew Corritore,
• Amir Goldberg,
• Sameer B. Srivastava

Culture is easy to sense but hard to measure. The workhorses of culture research—employee surveys and questionnaires—are often unreliable.

Studying the language that employees use in electronic communication has opened a new window into organizational culture. New research analyzing email, Slack messages, and Glassdoor postings are challenging prevailing wisdom about culture.

Some of the findings are (1) cultural fit is important, but what predicts success most is the rate at which employees adapt as organizational culture changes over time, (2) cognitive diversity helps teams during ideation but hinders execution, and (3) the best cultures encourage diversity to drive innovation but are anchored by shared core beliefs.

What email, Slack, and Glassdoor reveal about your organization

Idea in Brief

The problem.

Culture is easy to sense but difficult to measure. The workhorses of culture research—employee surveys and questionnaires—are often unreliable.

A New Approach

Studying the language that employees use in electronic communication has opened a new window into organizational culture. Research analyzing email, Slack messages, and Glassdoor postings is challenging prevailing wisdom about culture.

The Findings

• Cultural fit is important, but what predicts success most is the rate at which employees adapt as organizational culture changes over time.
• Cognitive diversity helps teams during ideation but hinders execution.
• The best cultures encourage diversity to drive innovation but are anchored by shared core beliefs.

A business’s culture can catalyze or undermine success. Yet the tools available for measuring it—namely, employee surveys and questionnaires—have significant shortcomings. Employee self-reports are often unreliable. The values and beliefs that people say are important to them, for example, are often not reflected in how they actually behave. Moreover, surveys provide static, or at best episodic, snapshots of organizations that are constantly evolving. And they’re limited by researchers’ tendency to assume that distinctive and idiosyncratic cultures can be neatly categorized into a few common types.

• MC Matthew Corritore is an assistant professor of strategy and organization at McGill’s Desautels Faculty of Management.
• AG Amir Goldberg is an associate professor of organizational behavior at Stanford’s Graduate School of Business. He and Sameer B. Srivastava codirect the Berkeley-Stanford Computational Culture Lab.
• SS Sameer B. Srivastava is an associate professor and the Harold Furst Chair in Management Philosophy and Values at the University of California, Berkeley’s Haas School of Business. He and Amir Goldberg codirect the Berkeley-Stanford Computational Culture Lab.

Partner Center

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

OrganisatiOnal Culture: a Case study

abstract Culture plays an important role in the performance of the organisation and in how potential employees perceive the company as an employer. A review of organisational culture and the lessons learnt from other successful organisations is imperative for the growth of the organisations. With the Schein's model of organisational culture as a theoretical framework, this paper discusses the employee-centric culture of Asia Pacific International Limited (APIL). The paper reviews the strengths and weaknesses of APIL in terms of its organisational culture. The paper would then discuss the case-studies of two successful organisations, J.C Penny and Infosys, both of which have a strong employee-centric culture like APIL. Based on the lessons learnt from these two case studies, we recommend a few organisational changes in the culture of APIL, which would lead to the success and growth of APIL.

Related Papers

Mihaela Otelea

Organizational culture is one of the determinants of a company’s competitiveness, and consequently, realistic analysis of the link between these two elements can provide relevant information to optimize it and, on this basis, to increase the company performance. The direct implications of organizational culture are important in business efficiency. Increasing the quality of human resources, efficient exploitation of material resources, and financial mean the achievement of provisioned levels of turnover, market share, or value added. Organizational culture, through its forms and manifestations (symbols, rules of behavior, customs, ceremonies, history, prestige, and authority of managers and employees), influences and leads to a series of behaviors and attitudes so that employees can tap the full potential for achieving goals. Eliminating fear in an organization is an essential requirement, as it encourages people to take more risks, responsibilities, and initiatives. Remarkable resu...

kalai yarasi

Every human being has certain personality traits which help them stand apart from the crowd. No two individuals behave in a similar way. In the same way organizations have certain values, policies, rules and guidelines which help them create an image of their own. Organization culture refers to the beliefs and principles of a particular organization. The culture followed by the organization has a deep impact on the employees and their relationship amongst themselves. Every organization has a unique culture making it different from the other and giving it a sense of direction. It is essential for the employees to understand the culture of their workplace to adjust well. Achieving and maintaining quality of product and customer satisfaction are two most important factors of successful organization. To achieve these twin objectives, an organization has to marshal various resources, plan its use over a period of time and produce a product or service, which meets the consumer needs, desi...

European Journal of Business and Management

Mayowa G Agboola

Research on Humanities and Social Sciences

Edwinah Amah

Muhammad Siddiqui

Nassima Mekbel , Karim Belkaci

Analysis of Organizational Culture: A Multiple Case Study

Pınar Başar

The aim of the study is to explore the cultural dimensions in three companies: Turkish Airlines, CAC-Bank and Fajr-e-jam Gas Refining Co. The multiple case study method was used for this study, so the cultural dimension can be deeply researched. There are dimensions like Involvement, Cooperation, Information system, Learning, Care about clients, Adaptability, Strategic direction, Reward and incentive, System of control, Communication, Agreement and Coordination. The paper reveals multidimensional nature of organizational culture. The findings show that all the dimensions are influencing corporate culture. It is important to note that organizational culture is a complex and multifaceted concept, and it can be challenging to fully understand and analyze the cultural dimensions of a company. Limited time and information can make it difficult to fully explore the cultural dimensions of an organization. However, understanding the cultural dimensions of a company can be important for a number of reasons. As a conclusion the dimensions have a positive impact on the corporate performance where the companies are growing and globalizing. Moreover, the analysis shows cultural differences at organizational level in terms of firm type, size, and age. A positive organizational culture can lead to increased employee engagement and productivity, while a negative organizational culture can have the opposite effect. Understanding the cultural dimensions of a company can also be important for stakeholders, such as investors and customers, as it can provide insight into the values and practices of the organization.

Rian Firmansyah Syafruddin

SRIDHAR MANI

RELATED PAPERS

Thanh Nhan Ngo

Václav Kříž

Jurnal Kedokteran dan Kesehatan : Publikasi Ilmiah Fakultas Kedokteran Universitas Sriwijaya

Insil Pendri Hariyani

Molecular Therapy

Shubham maurya

Canadian Journal of Public Health

Jacques Rhéaume

Bulletin des Sciences Mathématiques

Loic Foissy

Physical chemistry chemical physics : PCCP

Jorge Alberto Pedro

Journal of Construction Engineering and Management

MAURICIO EDUARDO CABRA LOPEZ

SENTRALISASI

ARDIANI IKA SULISTYAWATI

Acessibilidade nas Bibliotecas da UFRJ: uma avaliação à luz da vivência dos estudantes com deficiências

Pimenta Cultural , Ovidio Orlando Filho

British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

Shahme Farook

Deliberationes

Szilvia Dr Beke

Eugen Tcaciuc

European Biophysics Journal

Alan Koretsky

原版制作澳洲悉尼科技大学毕业证 uts学位证书学位证书扫描件

UOC文凭证书 UOC毕业证成绩单

Soft Matter

Russell Composto

Arquivos de Neuro-Psiquiatria

Otto Fustes

NMIMS Management Review, 16 (1-2)

Shelly Kawatra

Hydrobiologia

upasana mohapatra

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024