Case study analysis- Keeping Google Googley

This case concerns one of the biggest Internet companies ever existing, which
created the most popular search engine- Google. The case is presented from the
point of view of Kim Scott, director of Googles AdSense online sales and
operations, who worked in the company since 2004. The case study is a little bit
outdated, for it describes the situation of Google as it was 6 years ago, in 2008.
The case focuses mainly on the problems connected with Googles rapid
development, which could possibly harm the famous entrepreneurial spirit of the
company (this problem will be described further in the third part of the analysis).

Google- company description

Google, an American MNC, was established in the year 1998 at Stanford

University by Larry Page and Siergey Brin, who were both computer science
Ph.D. students. They developed an innovative algorithm ranking Internet search
results, which they used to create a search engine. The company was
developing rapidly and in 2004 it entered NASDAQ. In 1999 its HQ was moved to
Mountain View in Silicon Valley, where it remains until today.
By 2007, Google was attracting 587.8 million users each month, and, possessing
62,4% market shares for searches, it was making $16,593,986,000 revenues
annually ($58,82 billion in the last year). $2,119,985,000 of this amount on
research and development activity. In 2008, it was employing 17,000 workers
worldwide (more than 40,000 nowadays). From 2001 to 2011 Eric Schmidt was
Googles Chief Executive Officer (after 2011, Larry Page took his place).
Google search engine offers its services free of charge, though with every search
results, we might receive some personalized advertisements. These adverts are
part of Googles most profitable products- AdWords & AdSense, which were
responsible for 99% of the companys revenues. AdWords, the larger service of
these two, allows advertisers to direct the advert to certain customers basing on
his searching queries (for example, someone looking for tips on feeding dogs
would be shown adverts of dog food). AdWords was launched in 2000, and
AdSense in 2003. Most of the revenues from the adverts was coming from small
accounts.

Google is also constantly developing new products- some of them virtual, like
Google Maps or Gmail, and other ones being physical products- as Google
Glass. What seems unique is that quite many of these new products are money-
consuming projects with no projected revenues for the future.

Critical issues
The main problem presented in the case was preserving the company culture in
the face of rapid growth. This culture was responsible for Googles employees
innovativeness and productivity. It could seem as an obstacle sometimes, though
it could not be simply forgotten- that would mean destroying the famous
entrepreneurial atmosphere, which was one of the keys to companys success.

Above all, Googles company culture promotes cooperation. Various tools have
been employed to encourage workers to get to know themselves better and
create new contacts they could use at work- from common lunch tables to
company-sponsored ski trips. Food is naturally served for free. Besides this,
there are also other benefits for workers- such as free healthcare, swimming
pools, work out facilities... The company also allows its workers to take classes in
chosen subjects (for example, foreign languages). All this makes quality of work
and life in Mountain Valley (and other Google facilities around the world very
high, and proves Google to be an attractive employer.

Google workers are proud of the unique flat organizational structure, which
allows every worker to participate in decision-making processes. Decisions would
be made on common meetings, or by long e-mail chains. Even Larry Page and
Siergey Brin would not make any decisions about the company on their own, but
rather through meeting with their employees. Every major decision required
consensus of the workers involved in the process- the bigger the business within
Google, the more communications required. That could prove to be a time-
consuming process slowing down the work, but it was a very important part of the
companys culture.

Many Googles products are said to have been created only thanks to the 20%
rule. This tradition allows workers to use 20 percent of their working time to
develop their own projects. This also could hinder productivity in some moments
- which would be especially hard to bear with the deadline being close, though
again, this tradition allowed workers to bring their ideas into life and eventually
come up with a new, successful product. There was, however a risk connected
with this tradition- due to Googles rapid growth, company had its offices spread
everywhere around the world. It could very easily happen, that several people
would be working on the same projects. This is why a special database was
created, where workers worldwide could present their ideas and projects they are
working on. They could also assign virtual dollars to place bets on chosen
projects.

Objectives:
Innovativeness was a key factor of Googles success from its very beginning. It
helped Siergey Brin and Larry Page create the new search engine, and helped
the company introduce new successful products in the next few years, when it
was rapidly developing. The level of innovativeness that they achieved could not
be maintained without the Google culture and its most important elements: flat
organizational structure, freedom to work on individual projects, consensus-
oriented decision making, self-development opportunities

It is therefore out of question to completely give up any of the key elements

building the structure of Googles culture, for it would spin the company out of
balance. Maintaining these elements could be hard, but it would also be
necessary.
The problem is, that until 2008 Google was constantly growing, and it could be
unprepared for the eventual economy crisis. The managers needed to develop a
plan in case the companys growth came to a screeching halt.

Solutions

It is really hard to find elements in the Googles structure that would be

apparently wrong. The way it is organized might seem a little chaotic (some
projects were not even supervised by any manager), but it fits perfectly into the
Internet business environment, which requires elasticity and ability to adapt
quickly.
For example, lack of stiff organizational structure could become one of its
strongest attributes. It allows workers to adapt quickly to new objectives and
enables the teams to switch to new projects quickly.
However, some slight changes could still be made.
One thing is the lack of micromanagement. In Google, this is certainly a good
thing, since it encourages workers to think more creatively, but it leaves room for
many mistakes. A single person could easily miss something important. Since no
manager would be allowed to look upon ones shoulder, another type of control
should be implemented. Workers involved in work on a certain project should be
encouraged to help one another and check their work for eventual errors. After
all, it would the whole group held responsible for the success or failure of a
project, so it would be natural for workers to cooperate in order to make the
project as good as possible. Since Google is an engineer-centric organisation,
this solution- where one engineer checks the work of his colleague engineer,
would be more natural than if we made a manager controlled everybody.

The tradition allowing workers to spend 20% of their time on personally chosen
project should not be abandoned. However, some changes should be made to
ensure this time is well spent. This could be achieved, if the managers would
care to regularly check the database, and try to find out, what project each
worker is involved in. More cooperation between the workers on these projects
should also be encouraged. It might happen, for example, that a certain worker
does not have a clear idea of the project he wants to do at the time. In that case,
he should be able to join somebody elses project. That would require creating
another internet platform for workers to present their ideas and find cooperatives.
Besides that, it is clear, that on some rare occasions the managers should be
able to propose lifting this 20% rule for one or two weeks, if the only possible way
to finish a job in time is working 20% more. This should, however, be achieved
through consensus, and not single managers decision.

Talking of consensus- it is also an important part of the culture, and taking it

away would mean a risk of losing some workers and decreasing their dedication
for the company. Therefore, instead of changing the decision process itself, the
employees could be sent to courses on consensus reaching, where they would
learn the value of a swift decision and practice debating in an efficient way.
Googles company culture is something truly valuable to its workers, and it is one
of the reasons many of them really love this company. After all, there are not
many MNC using motto Dont be evil, and strongly trying to hold on to that.
Keeping this culture could mean some losses in productivity and revenues at
first, but after all, being entrepreneurial means constantly investing. Only this way
Google can remain innovative, hence, successful.