Understanding the theoretical frameworks that influence different organizational settings is an important factor to consider. Organizations normally strive to adopt a culture that accommodates its image and purpose. Google is among those organizations that have received immense focus with regard to organizational theory. Generally, there are numerous organizational theories; however, in this case, more focus will be given to post modernist and modernist strategies in a bid to understand Google as an entity.
According to Vaidhyanathan (2011, p.9) “Google is a black box. It knows a tremendous amount about us, and we know far too little about it”. Indeed, Google remains the most enormous and discreet repository of information from different parts of the globe. This repository is limitless given the technological enhancements that have taken place in the society and humans’ continued preference for the online interface as a reliable portal to achieve their communication needs. The support that Google has provided to the global economy is second to none given its common use as a search engine, email facility, and social networking portal.
Through Google, it has been possible for organizational entities to operate on the most cost effective online communication platform. In reference to post modernism approaches, Google strongly embraces theoretical frameworks proposed by William, especially those touching on globalization, fragmentation, and objectivism. On the other hand, in reference to modernism perspectives, Google strongly embraces theoretical frameworks such as Schein’s corporate culture, Ludwig’s system theory, and Burns and Stalker’s modern structural theory. These have been actively pursued to achieve its organizational structure and operational framework with regard to information.
Using Ludwig Von Bertalanffy’s general systems theory, Google has secured a corporate culture that operates on an open system. According to Ken (2010, p.208) Google’s recent strategy in the phone software industry was largely intended to end its bridge the competition from other players offering similar platforms such as iPhone, which operates on a closed system. As a result, Android has been declared open source software where no single entity can claim ownership (Ken 2010, p.208). In this regard, Google is able to leverage the industry and maintain a competitive edge over its players. In addition, using an open system in its corporate culture adequately incorporates its clientele into the corporate structure by giving them certain privileges and rights. Another perspective in Google’s open system is the consistent element of neutrality associated with Google and the manner in which it runs its system. The recent condemnation of Microsoft as a non trusted system after it was accused for crushing Netscape (Kieran 2009, p.199) . Thus, Google exploits is open system and neutrality to exploit the weaknesses demonstrated by its competitors and further deepen a strong association with its customers.
Using objectivism as a post modern perspective, Google has successfully been able to maintain a non conventional system that cannot be infiltrated easily. This has created a unique organizational ambience for Google, which seeks to accommodate all cultures without any formal restrictions. Consequently, Google has not always pursued conventional mechanisms that are preferred by other players in the information system and communication market. According to Kieran (2009, p.198) “for a company that disdained conventional marketing and did no advertising of its own, Google scarcely put a wrong foot on branding.” By avoiding these rather conventional approaches, a lot of discretion s practiced with regard to user’s identifiable traits in order to protect the integrity of its system. Moreover, simplicity is one of the dynamic traits that define Google’s service package. In addition, consistently provides services that guarantee the best solution framework for its users and in this regard the interface has always remained clear and simple while pages have always loaded almost instantly (Kieran 2009, p.199). This has an aspect of improving usability, which users tend to provide over other complicated systems, which may end up slowing access to information.
Schein’s corporate culture is embedded into Google’s organizational culture. The corporate culture incorporates an element of liberalism to promote an equal platform for its users. Google is tying its best to protect is new Android application from reaching monopoly (Ken 2010, p.208). The focus of Google is driven to some extent by an aspect of globalization. Google is aware of similar efforts being put by other world leading entities such as Microsoft who have successfully attained globalization by monopolizing the software and hardware market. Thus, in order to protect is global share and prevent possible takeover of the global search engine domain, Google pays Dell Machines millions of Dollars to make their search engine as the preferred or default in these machines (Vise 2006, p.21). In addition, Google employs the fragmentation principle to provide its services in multiple levels in which the clientele’s communication interface is provided based on their needs.
Burns and Stalker’s modern structural theory comes into play in two dimensions: stability and integration. These elements have been very instrumental to the success of Google its rather competitive market. Kieran (2009, p.198) observes that when the company adopted a ‘don’t be evil’ emblem as its corporate mantra in 2001, there was little reaction from the people. This corporate emblem can be interpreted as a strategy of portraying the level of information integrity associated with its system. Additionally, the emblem can also be seen as a strategy to showcase the level of stability of the system.
In as much as Google operates on an open system, it shows corporation with some closed governmental systems in which it operates. Google subscribes to the power and politics of national governments regarding the discretion of the citizens to access certain forms of information. Thus, by making reference to the foundations of social power, to some extent Google has colluded with certain national governments such as the China government to control access to information. In this particular case, Google strives to safeguard access of information to its user’s data. In China, it is the duty of the government to spy on all forms of communication carried out by all the civilians. In this regard, Google has strict policies which allow it to restrict unfair access to consumer information because it takes it upon itself as a moral obligation to block access to information through the search engine (Benkert 2009, p.457). Additionally, there are certain web indices that civilians are not allowed to access because of the degenerative symbols it brings to the self proclaimed communist power. As a result, Google is also blocking access to certain websites in China at the behest of the governmental authorities (Benkert 2009, p.460). In essence, Google using the post modernism perspective, Google clears maneuvers through power and politics to emerge as the sole protector of its consumer’s data.
Finally, it is evident that Google’s culture relies on a combination of post modernism and modernism theoretical perspectives to achieve its organizational initiatives. This is evident through its unique open system platform that it uses to meet information needs of its users. Nevertheless, to some extent Google also subscribes to closed system initiatives of some governmental institutions. Google continues to exploit the benefits of neutrality in order to achieve a consistent global image. Additionally, Schein’s corporate culture theoretical framework is actively pursued by Google to achieve its globalization initiatives.