Organizational Structure And Corporate Culture Of Google

The organizational structure

Google's corporate structure is not particularly unusual other than the existence of a few unique leadership positions such as Chief Culture Officer executive responsible for specific marketing and branding initiative and Chief Internet Evangelist a person who builds a support for a given technology, and then establishes it as a technical standard in a market (Suddiyas Nawaz, 2019).

The company is administered by a governing body, which goes directions down through an executive administration gathering. This gathering directs a few offices, for example, Engineering, Products, Legal, Finance and Sales. Every one of these divisions is separated into littler units. For instance, the Sales office has branches devoted to the Americas, Asia Pacific, and Europe, the Middle East and Africa. “Google's mission statement and vision statement reflect the powerful position of this company in terms of what it wants to achieve as it is one of the most valuable brands in the world” (Raiyan Shuvo, 2019)

Google's mission statement defines the strategies of the business, such as the development of new products.

Google has an authoritative culture for development. The organization likewise underscores the significance of receptiveness among workers, as a method for advancing an inventive outlook. The subsequent advancement applies to Google's methodologies in contending in different businesses. For example, the organization advances its innovative resources and administrations gave to clients in the web based publicizing industry. The accompanying qualities characterize Google's corporate culture:

1. Receptiveness
2. Advancement
3. Greatness that accompanies cleverness
4. Hands-on approach
5. Little organization family affinity

Reasons Behind structure

In spite of the fact that there is no immediate remark on the life-cycle idea per sure, it highlights the issues of any association that experiences fast development and simultaneously, how the culture will in general become bureaucratic, less imaginative and more de-persuasive for workers (Panmore Institute, 2019). Each innovation or its item has a real existence cycle and ceaseless development is critical to long haul development and manageability of an organization. The accompanying diagram shows the size (no. of representatives') versus income development of Google, aside from Motorola procurement, the diagram is direct, with income per worker averaging > $1.1M over time of 10 years. While Facebook and Apple have arrived at comparable income/worker, the example size is just not many years.

Conclusion

The 'mechanical upset' encouraged further 'division of work', which was trailed by 'get together line' fabricating process. Thusly, the white busted assistance industry went before the hands on laborers and later the Hi-tech laborers, yet fundamental culture didn't change a lot with the exception of a portion of its ancient rarities. These ancient rarities are reflected in office/desk area structure, huge number of advantages (nourishment, transportation) and so on, yet most associations stay bureaucratic with high level of practical specialization that is slanted to expand representative profitability and in this way benefits. (Tran, 2017). The steps taken by Google, as mentioned in the book, are certainly a step in the right direction. And should serve as a model for newer companies. As Google ages, perhaps in next decade, these concepts would be further tested for their effectiveness. Similar to Robert Noyce, who inspired entrepreneurial culture in Silicon Valley, Google’s experiment with organization design should have long term impact on valley's employee culture, this is brighter outlook for Millennials (Panmore Institute, 2019).