mkt531 corporate branding gavin teggart

Be Googley ˝

From unconventional office spaces to the Googleplex and everything in between, how Larry and Sergy cultivated a googley brandscape built on Trust,

Transparency and Inclusion.

Module Code - MKT531 Corporate BrandingStudent Number- Gavin Teggart B00551956Word Count - 2,328

Introduction

Within the realm of corporate brand culture strategic drivers are seen as leadership choices that change institutional direction, brand personality and the cultural and behavioural norms associated with a brand (Shultz and Hatch, 2008). Research suggests that corporate branding has become ‘enormously valuable’ adding to the corporate brand equity (Schultz and Hatch, 2001) in recent times; and that the growth of corporate brands have led to increased emotional bonds across the stakeholders being established (Hamzah et al ,2014; Kotter and Heskett, 1992).

Furthermore it is evident that these emotional bonds are effective drivers that establish the foundations of company culture (Balmer, 2006 a) and guide leaders into creating powerful brandscapes built on their core values (Balmer, 2006 b). Influenced by this work, this paper argues that there are three core leadership values that underpin the Google brand culture, namely, Trust, Transparency and Inclusion.

Culture

Through the works of Hofstede (2001) and other theorists (see appendix 1) it can be said that culture represents the broad and holistic sense of human traits and qualities that are passed down through each generation. Adding to the research of culture, Schien (2004) projects the view that culture is a visionary force of change, which according Schien can create powerful social and organisational situations. Many organisations such as Google are seen to be heavily embedded in culture, which is seen to provide organisational advantage in the global market.

Further research carried out by Lapin (2012) Keyton (2005) and Kunda (1992) suggest corporate culture is a central part of Google and can be seen to connect all various business aspects which promotes: innovative thinking, efficiency and productivity within the organisation. Culture therefore is a vital element in building successful organisations that not only create corporate culture but consumes other cultural elements (Scott et al, 2003)

Leadership

From the work of Gregory et al (2004) and Vise and Malseed (2005) it is clear that leadership is another vital element of an organisation, as it is the leaders that create the vision and strategies that push the organisation towards exceptional results.

Be Googley MKT531 Page �2

Building on this work, Nemonic and Vera (2009) introduce the concept of transformational leadership (See Appendix 2), in which leaders that have transformational behaviours act as ‘change agents’ by challenging the status quo, which allows for opportunities to be exploited, social capital and value to be created and provide organisations with an overall advantage (Nahapiet and Ghoshal. 1998).

These behaviours are seen in creating a sense of trust within the organisation, incorporating vision and employee empowerment (Burns, 1978) which in the long term projects high moral values that are embedded in the organisation. The research therefore indicates that the founders of Google can be seen as pioneers of transformational leadership, as seen in the flat leadership model practiced and in their overall raison d’être. (See Appendix 3)

Culture and Leadership two sides of the same coin

In their respective forms, culture and leadership are powerful entities that can shape the corporate brand culture of an organisation, which in this case is Google. It can be argued however that culture and leadership are (according to Schien (1992)) “Two sides of the same coin”. This view is supported through the work of Fairholm (1994) who states that both entities are intertwined - needing one another to function.

Firstly, leadership: leaders are required to cultivate an organisations culture by shaping and spreading the right values that are required by any organisation should they wish to survive in a highly competitive marketplace. In regards to culture, Tan (2014) as cited by Olenski (2014) writes that “Culture breeds leaders” and that through investing time on growing a ‘team centric’ culture, organisations can remain sustainable, as is the case for Google.

Google, Not a Happy Accident

The creation of Google’s corporate culture is not by any means a happy accident. Through early indoctrination and clear communication of Googles core values, a community has formed that engenders an unparalleled sense of pride. Webber (2008) builds on this idea by stating that the founding fathers established an uncommon corporate culture based on their own personal values, which is solidified in the Google philosophy “To create the happiest most productive workplace in the world” (Google, 2015a)


The leadership model constructed by Larry Page and Sergy Brin, overthrows traditional leadership theory as seen in the works of Hemphill & Coons (1957) and other leadership theorists (see appendix 4). By breaking away from traditional theory, and focusing on creating an environment that motives talent and creates and maintains employee happiness, Google have created an almost idyllic work environment.

Three Core Values of Google: Trust, Transparency and Inclusion

There are three core values that are seen to underpin the corporate brand culture of Google, like Google’s culture and leadership (see appendix 5) the three core values are intertwined and practiced in Google daily. Jarvis (2009) discusses how there is a three way relationship within Google between these values, by being transparent and open to others, the employees of Google build high levels of trust in each other and the organisation, through this simple action employees are seen to communicate these core values (Wilson 2001).

Social interactions between Googles employees or ‘Googlers’ are deemed as catalysts in promoting the core values of the organisation (Morhart 2009) in this case Trust, Transparency and Inclusion. It can be argued that Googlers are put in scenarios that emphasis these values. This can be seen during lunchtime, a daily ritual that develops the organisations three core values through social interactions amongst Googlers.

These interactions such well timed lines (under 4 minute waiting) and no rigid seating plan, discourage the formation of social cliques and promotes social mobility within Google (Podolny and Baron, 1997) which in turn increases inclusion and builds employee trust. Furthermore Ferrante (2008) argues that by providing meaning to these social interactions grow corporate culture and in turn promotes organisational values.

The aforementioned leadership model used by Google is seen to strengthen and promote Googles core values. The flat leadership structure managers and bosses are seen as support resources that engage with Googlers on a social level. By engaging in this way, managers create and personify trust according which to Bandsuch et al (2008) is an indispensable facet in organisations. However research carried out by Garrison et al (2010) indicates that trust is a minimal interaction needed to interact fully with employees.


Applying this research to Googles managers, it is clear that other personality traits are present which can be seen as a counterpart to the three core values. Aaker (1997) states that brand personality is based on five core human traits, one such trait that links to trust is sincerity. The managers are seen to be genuine and honest with speaking to Googlers in order to ease them intothe the google way of life. (See appendix 6)

Other activities that are seen to strengthen the core values of Google can be seen in peer bonuses, in which employees can award others with $200 without the approval from leaders. These random acts of kindness and encouragement promotes a sense of inclusion and trust, Kerr and Slocum (1987) provides support on this view. By providing rewards not based on merit organisations can manage corporate culture effectively and communicate core values more freely.

Larry and Sergy also engage Googlers frequently through a concept known as Thank God Its Friday (TGIF). This encourages questions and answers from all offices within Google with the aim of developing and maintaining a sense of transparency, Espejo et al (2011) go on to say that through structured engagement like TGIF, Googlers are empowered to be more trusting and influential in the policy creating process. This experience in turn not only heightens trust and transparency but promotes Googlers to ‘Be Googley’

Googlegiest is another engagement tool used by the founders. An annual employee survey used to implement change and resolve problems within Google, Googlegiest provides an outlet to project their thoughts about life within Google. Googlers are seen to be more transparent when discussing problems within the work environment. Through the medium of Googlegiest, which builds on the core value of trust. This is an essential commodity that is seen to increase efficiency which encourages and promotes risk taking and heightened levels of innovative thinking .(Drucker, 1992; Walton, 1985). Looking deeper into Googlegist, Steiber and Alange (2013) provides evidence that indicates how Googlegiest increases innovation within Googlers, which is according to Christensen (1997) is vital to the success of any company.

Increasing innovative thinking is considered to a main goal at Google, it can be seen to not only to higher revenue streams but promotes and maintains the three core values. The flat leadership model, frequent opportunities of engagement and high levels of trust, provides Googlers with the freedom needed to be innovative and productive. Googlers are encouraged to work on their own projects and take some time away from their workloads. This unique concept is seen as the 70/20/10 time philosophy (see appendix 7) developed by Eric Schmidt executive chairman of Google and is openly practiced by everyone at Google including Larry and Sergy. (Battelle, 2005)


The 70/20/10 philosophy, is seen to keep Googlers engaged in the company creating high levels of trust and reinforcing the concept of the flat leadership model. (Whitner et al,1998)

Brand language within Google is another interaction that promotes a sense of inclusion and transparency. New employees are seen as ‘Nooglers’, members of LGBT community are seen as ‘Gayglers’ and the term Googlers is used to include the entire employee structure. Van Maanen (1991) puts forward the idea of brand language and how the language of an organisation instils inclusion amongst employees, the use of brand language in Google demonstrates the high level of diversity and promotes the sense of trust and inclusion.

Living Brand Ideologies

Google is ‘alive’ with elements that not only support their overall brand ideology but promote performance, innovation and a strong organisational culture. Through careful design and guidance ‘Googleplex’ ( See appendix 8) is now seen as a temple built on trust, transparency and inclusion. This powerful brandscape not only reiterates Googles core values and company culture ( Deal and Kennedy, 1986) but acts almost like a commercial that draws in consumers, or in the case of Google employees (Sherry, 1998).

It is evident Googleplex reflects core corporate values, Manuelli (2006) puts forward the idea that brandscapes, in regards to a retail environment influence the actions and behaviours of the consumer which lead them to ‘buy in’ to what the store is selling. In regards to Google, Manuelli's (2006) concept supports the notion that Googleplex is designed to incapsulate the core values and to promote themselves to employees. This can be seen more effectively in the unconventional office spaces at google which is seen to create creative collisions and inspire innovative thinking amongst Googlers. (Becker and Steele, 1995; McCoy and Evans, 2002 )

Again the founding fathers have placed the core values and leadership model at the centre of this practice, going back to the Google philosophy of establishing the happiest work place in the world, the development of unconventional office spaces are seen to not only instil happiness but also influence the way employees communicate, work and essentially live within Google, which ultimately projects Googles overall mission. (Van Meel and Vos 2001)

However it is not just unconventional office spaces that are seen to inspire creativity and promote a sense of play in the work place. The location and environment that surrounds Googleplex plays a huge factor in how Googleplex is designed, Van Ham (2001) puts forward the concept of ‘Brand


Sates’, in which countries now brand themselves on the traits people associate with them which has been seen to promote higher levels of trust. In regards to Googleplex, the building is seen to incorporate country traits in the design i.e. a traditional Irish bar in Googleplex Dublin (see appendix 9). By developing design that highlight country specific traits Googleplex can be seen as a brand state that provides employees with a new emotional dimension that resonates trust, transparency and inclusion.

Further research into the concept of Brandscapes carried out by Gottdiener (1992) supports the notion that Googleplex is embedded in various symbols that emphasise the core values that Google embodies. Ponsonby McCabe and Boyle (2006) support this view and provide deeper understanding in regards to Googleplex as a brandscape. It can be seen that the creation of such an interactive space was like the company no happy accident. Ponsonby McCabe and Boyle (2006) states that brandscapes create ‘spiritual value’ for the consumer which in this case are the Googlers, and that through the use of atmospherics such as unconventional work spaces these brandscapes promote an “idyllic utopia” to work and play in. Therefore brandspaces in reference to Google are just as vital to the promotion of the three core values as the leadership model and daily interactions are.

Conclusion

From the research it is clear that there are three core values which are seen as trust, transparency and inclusion are that are present within Google through daily rituals and interactions. It is clear that the creation Google was no happy accident and that through innovative leadership techniques an uncommon corporate culture has formed. Balmer and Grey (2003) summarise that an organisations brand values are directly linked to that of the leaders, this view is support through the works of Argenti and Druckenmillar (2004) who claim that corporations are almost mirror images of the founders .

It is therefore evident Googles founders have deliberately created a utopia like environment where Googlers are encouraged to explore, create and play within Googleplex - leading to higher rates of productivity, innovation and happiness.

In summary, through the research conducted on how there are three core values that underpin the Google corporate brand, it can be agreed that these three values of trust, transparency and inclusion are indeed the cornerstones of Google corporate brand that promotes Googlers to be googley.


Recommendations

• Further research into to employee loyalty is recommended in order to understand loyalty within Google.

• Through the research Brandscapes have been discovered to play an instrumental role in Googles overall corporate brand culture , therefore it is recommended that future research could follow a brandscape centric approach.

• How Google see time (70/20/10 time philosophy) and how this links into innovative thinking is a topic that could be explored at length as it builds on Googles three core values of Trust, Transparency and Inclusion.

References


Aaker, J. (1997). Dimensions of Brand Personality . Journal of Marketing Research . 34

Argenti, A. Druckenmillar, B. (2004). Reputation and the Corporate Brand. Corporate Reputation Review . 6 (4)

Balmer, J. (2006b). Corporate Brand Cultures and Communities. In: Schroeder, J. Salzer-Morling, M. Brand Culture. New York: Routledge

Balmer, J.M.T. (2006a), “Comprehending corporate marketing and the corporate marketing mix”, Working Paper, No. 06/08, Bradford School of Management, University of Bradford, Bradford.

Balmer, J. M.T., & Greyser, S. A. (2006). Corporate marketing: Integrating corporate identity, corporate branding, corporate communications, corporate image and corporate reputation. European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 40

Bandsuch, M. Pate, L. Thies, J. (2008). Rebuilding Stakeholder Trust in Business: An examination of principle - centered leadership and organizational transparency in corporate governance . Business and Society Review. 113

Battelle , J (2005). "The 70 Percent Solution: Google CEO Eric Schmidt gives us his golden rules for managing innovation". CNN Money magazine. Retrieved August 12, 2011.

Becker, F. D., & Steele, F. (1995). Workplace by design: Mapping the high-performance workscape. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bulygo, Z. (2013). Inside Google’s Culture of Success and Employee Happiness. Available: https://blog.kissmetrics.com/googles-culture-of-success/. Last accessed 25th April 2015.

Burns, J. (1978) Leadership. New York. Harper & Row

Christensen, C. (1997), The Innovator’s Dilemma, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA

Deal, T. E. and Kennedy, A. A. (1986) ‘Corporate Cultures: The Rites and Rituals of Corporate Life’, New York: Perseus Publishing

Drucker, P. F. 1992. Managing the Non-Profit Organization: Principles and Practices, New York: Harper Collins


Espejo, R. Bedek, Z. (2011). An argument for active citizenship and organisational transparency. Kybernetes. 40 (3/4)

Fairholm, G. (1994). Leading Diverse Followers. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies. 1 (4)

Ferrante, J (2010). Sociology: A Global Perspective. 9th ed. Wadsworth: Cengage Learning.

Garrison, G. Wakefield,R. Xu, X. Kim, S.H.. (2010). Globally distributed teams: the effect of diversity on trust, cohesion and individual performance. ACM Sigmis database. 41 (3)

Geertz,C (1973). The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays. New York: Basic Books.

Google. (2015a). Google About Company. Available: https://www.google.co.uk/about/company/. Last accessed 25th April 2015

Google. (2015b). Ten Things We Know To Be True. Available: https://www.google.co.uk/about/company/philosophy/. Last accessed 25th April 2015

Google. (2015c ). Google Mountain View (Global HQ). Available: https://www.google.co.uk/about/careers/locations/mountain-view/. Last accessed 25th April 2015.

Google. (2015d). Google Dublin (EU HQ). Available: https://www.google.co.uk/about/careers/locations/dublin/. Last accessed 25th April 2015

Gottdiener, M. (1998) The semiotics of consumer spaces: The growing importance of the themed environment. In J. Sherry (ed.) Servicescapes: The Concept of Place in Contemporary Markets, Chicago: NTC Business Books.

Gregory, A. Russell, R. Patterson, K. (2004). Transformational versus servant leadership: a difference in leader focus. Leadership and Organisation Development Journal. 25 (4)

Handy C.B. (1985) Understanding Organizations, 4th edn. Facts on File Publications, New York, USA.

Hamzah, H. Faridah, S. Othman, N. (2014). Designing corporate brand experience in an online context: A qualitative insight. Journal of Business Research. 11

Hatch, M . Schultz, M (2008). Taking Brand Initiative: How Companies Can Align Strategy. Culture, and Identiry Through Corporate Branding. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Be Googley MKT531 Page �10

Hatch, M . Schultz, M. (2001). Are The Strategic Stars Aligned For Your Corporate Brand. Harvard Business Review

Hemphill, J.K. Coons, A.E. (1957). Development of the leader behavior description questionnaire. In: Stogdill,R.M. Coons, A.E Leader behavior: Its description and measurement. Columbus: Ohio State University: Bureau of Business Research

Hersey,P. Blanchard,K.H.(1988). Management of organizational behavior: Utilizing human resources (5th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Hofstede, G. 2001. Culture's Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations across Nations. California. Sage

Jackson, L. (2013). THE REAL SECRET OF GOOGLE’S CORPORATE CULTURE. Available: http://www.corporateculturepros.com/2013/07/the-real-secret-of-googles-corporate-culture/. Last accessed 25th April 2015

Jaques, E. Clement, S (1994). Executive Leadership: A Practical Guide to Managing Complexity. Arlington: Carson Hall and Co.

Jarvis, J (2009). What Would Google Do?. New York: Harper Collins

Kerr, J. Slocum, J. (1987). Managing Corporate Culture through Reward Systems. The Academy of Management Executive. 1 (2)

Keyton, J. (2005) Communication and Organizational Culture: A Key to Understanding Work Experiences. California: Sage.

Kotter, J. Heskett, J (1992). Corporate Culture and Performance. New York: The Free Press.

Kunda, G. (1992) Engineering Culture: Control and Commitment in a High-Tech Corporation. Philadelphia. Temple University Press

Lapin, D. (2012). HOW INTANGIBLE CORPORATE CULTURE CREATES TANGIBLE PROFITS. Available: http://www.fastcompany.com/1840650/how-intangible-corporate-culture-creates-tangible-profits. Last accessed 24th April 2015.

Linton, R (1945). The Cultural Background of Personality. New York: Appleton-Century


Manuelli, S. (2006), Design for Shopping, Lawrence King, London.

McCoy, J. Evans, G. . (2002). The Potential Role of the Physical Environment in Fostering Creativity. Creativity Research Journal. 14 (3)

Morhart, F.M., Herzog, W. and Tomczak, T. (2009), “Brand- specific leadership: turning employees into brand champions”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 73

Nahapiet, J. Ghoshal, S. (1998). SOCIAL CAPITAL, INTELLECTUAL CAPITAL, AND THE ORGANIZATIONAL ADVANTAGE. Academy of Management Review. 23 (2)

Nemanich, L. Vera, D. (2009). Transformational leadership and ambidexterity in the context of an acquisition. The Leadership Quarterly . 20

Olenski, S. (2014). How One Brand Uses Corporate Culture To Maximize Productivity. Available: http://www.forbes.com/sites/steveolenski/2014/08/27/how-one-brand-uses-corporate-culture-to-maximize-productivity/2/. Last accessed 25th April 2015.

Podolny,J. Baron, J. (1997). Resources and Relationships: Social Networks and Mobility in the Workplace. American Sociological Review. 62

Ponsonby-McCabe, S. Boyle, E. (2006). Understanding brands as experiential spaces: axiological implications for marketing strategists. Journal of Strategic Marketing,. 14

Schein, E (2004). Organizational Culture and Leadership. 3rd ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Scott, T. Mannion, R. Davies, H. Marshell, M. (2003). The Quantitative Measurement of Organizational Culture in Health Care: A Review of the Available Instruments. Health Services Research. 38 (3)

Sherry, J. (1998) The soul of the company store: Nike Town Chicago and the emplaced brandscape In J. Sherry Servicescapes, The Concept of Place in Contemporary Markets, Lincolnwood: NTC Business Books

Steiber, A. Alange, S. (2013). A corporate system for continuous innovation: the case of Google Inc.. European Journal of Innovation Management. 16


Stogdill, R. M. ‘Leadership, membership and organization’ Psychological Bulletin vol. 47 pp. 1–14. (1950)

Tannenbaum, R. Weschter, . Masscrik, F (1961). Leadership and Organization: A Behavioral Science Approach. London: McGraw Hill.

Van Ham, P. (2001). The Rise of the Brand State: The Postmodern Politics of Image and Reputation. Foreign Affairs. 80 (5),

Van Maanen, J. (1992). Displacing Disney: Some Notes on the Flow of Culture. Qualitative Sociology.15 (1)

Van Meel, J. Vos, P. (2001). Funky offices: Reflections on office design in the ‘new economy’. Journal of Corporate Real Estate. 3 (4)

Vise, D. A., & Malseed, M. (2005). The Google story: Inside the hottest business, media, and technology success of our time. New York, NY: Bantam Dell.

Walton, M. (1985). Mind behind the Mac. Bay Area Computer Currents.

Weber, S. (2008). Organizational behaviour. Google corporate culture in perspective . Heibronn Business School.

Whitner, E. Brodt,S. Korsgaard, A. Werner, J. (1998). Managers as Initiators of Trust: An Exchange relationship framework for Understanding Managerial Trustworthy Behaviour. Academy of Management Review. 23 (3)

Wilson, A.W. (2001). “Understanding Organisational Culture and the Implications for Corporate Marketing.” European Journal of Marketing 35


Appendices

Appendix one

Culture Theory

Below highlights key views on Culture

Views on Culture Theorist

A culture is the configuration of learned behavior and results of behavior whose component elements are shared and transmitted by the members of a particular society.

Linton 1945

The integrated sum total of learned behavioural traits that are manifest and shared by members of a society

Geertz, 1973

The pattern of basic assumptions that a group has invented, discovered or developed, to cope with its problems of external adaptation or internal integration, that have worked well and are taught to new members as the way to perceive, think, feel and behave

Schien, 1992

in organisations there are deep-set beliefs about the way work should be organised, the way authority should be exercised, people rewarded, people controlled. What are the degrees of formalisation required? How much planning and how far ahead? What combination of obedience and initiative is looked for in subordinates? Do work hours matter, or dress, or personal eccentricities? What about expense accounts, and secretaries, stock options and incentives?

Handy, 1985

Culture is the collective programming of the mind that distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from others"

Hofstede, 2001


Appendix 2

The below highlights Nemonic and Vera (2009) Transformational Leadership Model applied to Google. The model shows the outcomes of organisations that are built by Transformational leaders.


Appendix 3

The Google Philosophy (Google, 2015b)


Appendix 4

Traditional Leadership Theory

Views on Leadership Theorist

Leadership is the behavior of an individual when he is directing the activities of a group toward a shared goal.

Stogdill, 1950

Leadership is the behavior of an individual when he is directing the activities of a group toward a shared goal.

Hemphill & Coons, 1957:

Leadership is interpersonal influence, exercised in a situation, and directed, through the communication process, toward the attainment of a specified goal or goals

Tannenbaum, Weschler & Massarik, 1961

Leadership is the process of influencing the activities of an individual or a group in efforts toward goal achievement in a given situation.

Hersey & Blanchard, 1988:

Leadership is that process in which one person sets the purpose or direction for one or more other persons and gets them to move along together with him or her and with each other in that direction with competence and full commitment

Jaques & Clement, 1994


Appendix 5

Infographic depicting leadership at Google (Jackson, 2013)


Appendix 6

Below highlights the rules for promoting a better team centric environment within Google . (Bulygo, 2013)


Appendix 7 (Battelle,2005)

“The 70/20/10 Model is a business resource management model pioneered by Eric Schmidt and articulated about Google in 2005. This model dictates that, to cultivate innovation, employees should utilize their time in the following ratio”

• 70% of time should be dedicated to core business tasks.

• 20% of time should be dedicated to projects related to the core business.

• 10% of time should be dedicated to projects unrelated to the core business.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_model

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Schmidt

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google

Appendix 8

The picture below depicts Googleplex Headquarters (Google, 2015c)


Appendix 9

Googleplex Dublin (Google, 2015d)


mkt531 corporate branding gavin teggart

Documents

corporate culture

research of culture

google brand culture

corporate brand equity

core leadership values

brand personality

growth of corporate

brand shultz