Google and Organizational Culture
Google has a legendary corporate culture in today's new tech circles. Maggie Johnson and Max Senges (2010) studied the onboarding process for new incoming engineers ("Nooglers") at Google's corporate headquarters in Mountain View, California. Johnson and Senges also interviewed employees at the Google offices in Hyderabad, India and in Zurich, Switzerland. I was fascinated to see how Hofstede's principles (2009) applied directly to the context of Google's corporate culture.
Hofstede identified open systems versus closed systems as a dimension to describe corporate culture. "Things change quickly" is part of Google's indoctrination in an introductory course for Nooglers is reflective of a very open system. Google's openness to new ideas and willingness to change with them is a picture of how easily they admit newcomers into their corporate culture.
Another dimension Hofstede identified is tight versus loose control. Google falls very close to the loose-control end of the spectrum. Many opportunities for sharing knowledge are voluntary. "Intergrouplets" are voluntary communities within departments. They maintain style guides for programming languages and do peer reviews of their work. Several people look at a Noogler's coding project - each one looking at a different aspect to ensure quality.
Google's loose control is evidenced by their expectation that their engineers will manage themselves. "Google trusts you to make the decision that is best for you and best for Google" (Johnson and Senges quoted Shillingsburg's 2004 document). Google's assumption after the training period is over is that engineers will take personal responsibility for their professional success.
That focus on personal responsibility is also indicative of falling into the job-oriented end of the spectrum on Hofstede's job-oriented versus employee-oriented dimension. "You need to take care of your career development” (Shillingsburg, 2004). This undoubtedly produces an environment where some people thrive and others fail miserably.
A related dimension from Hofstede is process-oriented versus results-oriented. Google definitely falls toward the end of the results-oriented side of the spectrum. They are not defined by "technical and bureaucratic routines" (Hofstede, 2009). Continual peer review of coding projects is a clear picture of looking at results above all else. Google allows enough autonomy for an engineer to get the job done the best way they see fit.
References
Hofstede, Geert (2009). Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, Unit 2. Retrieved from http://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/orpc/vol2/iss1/8
Johnson, M., & Senges, M. (2010). Learning to be a programmer in a complex organization. Journal of Workplace Learning, 22(3), 180-194. doi: 10.1108/13665621011028620
Shillingsburg, R. (2004), “Life of an engineer”, internal document, Google Inc., Mountain View, CA.
Small world: Maggie Johnson was my husband's Stanford thesis advisor and later his boss at Google.
ReplyDeleteI have heard that due to Google's rapid growth, a more bureaucratic structure has taken hold and with it a strong cultural shift. Should Google work to maintain their 'old' culture in the engineering department, or would this cause inconsistencies that lead to lower performance? Are there times when different departments should nurture completely different organizational cultures?
I think Google should keep changing to adapt to the times - but I also feel that they should keep enough consistency to maintain order, as you imply.
ReplyDeleteGoogle is big enough that I am sure they have several micro cultures within their departments.
The reading didn't get at all the perks, like free meals, etc. Those kinds of perks truly affect their corporate culture.
Paul, I know a young man recently hired at google after interning there for a few summers. Just from his experience during the internships he talked about Google as if he was an employee. Do you think google's culture is so strong that it has an influence on their interns in preparation of some of them becoming employees?
ReplyDeleteI found it interesting that at a company as innovative as Google, engineers are responsible for their own success following their training period. How do you think Google's culture would differ from that of Gore's lattice structure where sponsors indoctrinate and work with new associates?
ReplyDelete