Words: 1109
Google has evolved significantly since its debut in 1998. It has gone from an oddity (“Hey, have you heard about that new search site, Google? “) to a household name (“Why don’t you check and see what Google has on that subject? “) to a verb synonymous with Internet search (“Google me. I’m a pretty big deal. “). A behind the scenes look at the corporate culture driving this company will reveal how Google has managed to gain such coveted permanence in daily life, how it will manage to stay in its place as the top search engine, and how it will maintain its relevance in the technology market.
One definition of culture from Merriam-Webster Online (2010) is “the set of shared attitudes, values, goals, and practices that characterizes an institution or organization. ” That definition requires that both the idealistic vision ???values, goals ???and the realistic version ???attitudes and practices ???of an organization be taken into consideration when determining the culture. Google claims to perpetuate a small business culture.
It maintains the ideal of a small company by promoting interdepartmental collaboration on projects, which at Google often require at least one person from multiple departments, and during free time with social groups formed for individual hobbies (Google, 2010). These activities offer a chance for coworkers to associate with one another in a professional and personal capacity . Culture and communication are interdependent. How the people in a culture communicate with one another speaks directly to the values of the culture. Alternatively, communication is the best way to ensure that everyone in the culture understands what is important.
A culture that values creativity will communicate in a way that promotes creativity. A culture that communicates it commitment to honesty will provide a climate that nurtures that virtue. If a culture were to communicate a value that it did not promote or show in actions, the results would not be desirable. On a small scale, individuals will be confused about how seriously to take the culture. Some individuals may become cynical, others anarchist. For a business, being what one claims to be is important for attracting and keeping talented employees and satisfying customers.
In a business, the mission statement is usually the company’s beacon, informing all the decisions that company makes. Google’s mission statement is, “To organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful” (McCraken, 2005). This tenet directs all that Google does whether it is developing an operating system for mobile devices (Android), building a new browser from the ground up (Google Chrome), or making entire libraries of information available for search (Google Books). To underscore this mission, Google summarizes its philosophy in “Ten things we know to be true. These 10 points illustrate Google’s commitment to its users above all. The number one truth that Google believes and operates from is, “Focus on the user and all else will follow” (Google, 2010, p. 17). It has thus far been successful with offering products that meet the needs of today’s business and social markets, even creating viable competition for Microsoft (Vance, 2010). Of the three types of conflict, the one with the most chance for growth within an organization is simple conflict. This type of conflict “occurs when two people’s goals or ideas are mutually exclusive or incompatible” (Beebe & Masterson,??2006,??p. 72 ). In this type of interaction, people can be encouraged to communicate effectively and find a suitable solution. Conflict is simply an opportunity to find a solution that will satisfy the requirements of the project. Google sets the stage for conflict by virtue of its industry. It needs to remain on the cutting edge of technology if it is to attract the clientele it needs to remain profitable. This edge is actually an apex where all the disciplines involved in technology development meet. The site must be visually appealing; this requires artistic people.
The site must return the most relevant information for the searches conducted; this requires people adept with coding. The site has to be tested to ensure it is fulfilling its purpose; this calls for statisticians who are good with numbers and interpreting data. The desires of the artistic group may be limited by the coding group’s ability. Even that collaboration can be altered by the data collected by the statisticians. After Google developed its eighth iteration, conflict appeared in an encouraging and helpful way. Walters (2010) describes this conflict and shows Google’s step-by-step approach to vetting new products.
The first step is releasing a prototype for “dogfooding,” a process that lets Google employees opt to test the new product. In a big company, candid feedback might be an issues. However, because Google promotes its small business feel, employees can speak about their problems with the prototype without fear of repercussion or isolation. Feedback is given on the design and bugs that may have escaped the eye of the designers, and then researchers sit with test subjects through an hour of eyetracking sessions. Next, the new product is offered as a beta option to live users.
The data from these users is interpreted by statisticians and presented along with the feedback from “dogfooding” and the eyetracking sessions. The result is tweaked to satisfy any problems the tests reveal. Google’s test and redesign approach focuses on data as the conflict resolver. For example, the eighth iteration nearly had a blue search button. Google employees found it distracting; eyetracking tests found that it was an unnecessary detractor from the main purpose; the blue button was cut before the full public release. In the end, Google operates as a team of developers sensitive to the market that determines its success.
The designers may sacrifice some of their vision for the integrity of the final product based on the internal “dogfooding” process, the eye tracking data presented by engineers, and the information provided by customers through the statisticians. The people who use Google speak, and Google listens. This company is a prime example of how simple conflict in the right environment gives way to excellent results. References Beebe, S. A. , & Masterson, A. T. (2006). Communicating in small groups: Principles and practices (8th ed. ). Boston, MA: Pearson. Google. (2010). Corporate Information. Retrieved from http://www. google. om/corporate/ Google. (2010). Our Philosophy. Retrieved from http://www. google. com/corporate/tenthings. html McCracken, H. (2005). A Google, Google, Google, Google World. PC World, 23(8), 17. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database. Merriam-Webster. (2010). Merriam-Webster Online. Retrieved from http://www. merriam-webster. com/dictionary/culture Vance, A. (2010, July??4). Microsoft calling. Anyone there?. New York Times. Retrieved from http://www. nytimes. com/2010/07/05/technology/05soft. html Walters, H. (2010). Google did. Bloomberg Businessweek, (4178), 56-62. Retrieved from Business Source Complete database.