Google's Project Oxygen: Do Managers Really Matter?

Introduction

Google is one of the most successful and revered companies in the contemporary world. This is attributed to the innovative projects the company continually undertakes for self-assessment, through which it develops and delivers innovative products. In keeping with its drive to analyze established norms, Google initiated Project Oxygen in 2009, which is assessed and discussed extensively in this paper.

From the company's earliest days, one aspect that was largely questioned was the value of managers and whether they truly mattered. The company was formed and built by engineers for engineers. Consequently, a great deal of those engineers devoted their time to planning and debugging rather than interacting with managers or overseeing other employees' progress. A number of years after the company's inception, founders Page and Brin questioned whether Google needed managers at all. In 2002, company leaders experimented by adopting a completely flat organization and eliminating managers entirely. However, this trial lasted only a few months. As the corporation grew, the founders realized that managers played a significant role and made immense contributions in important ways (Shanmugam, 2013).

This paper discusses the challenge Google tackled: whether managers matter. A key question is how Google can function and operate effectively when the highly skilled personnel it employs do not value managers. Furthermore, how does the company convert skeptics and convince them to spend time supervising and managing others? Google began examining its assumptions about management qualities and then built its case. Project Oxygen, undertaken over a number of years, produced findings that identified eight key behaviors for managers — behaviors that continue to be nurtured and refined through training and communication. By the end of 2012, Google had demonstrated statistically significant improvements in numerous areas of managerial effectiveness, clearly showing that managers matter a great deal to the organization.

Google's Organizational Culture

On its establishment, founders Page and Brin instituted an informal culture. Google is undeniably one of the most exciting and vibrant corporations in the world today. The organization is ranked as one of the best owing to its performance as an extremely sought-after employer, and all of this is tied to Google's corporate culture. The corporate culture is linked to elevating and inspiring the thinking and creativity of its employees through programs designed for the most forward-thinking people in the company (Google, 2010).

The workforce structure of Google is considered effective and efficient. Because the founders are young and energetic, they instituted an employee structure that has virtually no formal chain of command. Rather than a formal hierarchy, the founders prefer an open-door structure whereby every worker is encouraged to discuss problems and the current state of the organization. An outstanding feature of the team structure used at Google is that all work is undertaken in projects. The leader of every project rotates periodically so that every individual has the opportunity to lead at some point. In every task undertaken, each individual is expected to interact and collaborate with team members while contributing his or her individual strengths (Scott, 2008).

Employees at Google enjoy considerable freedom in shaping the direction of the work carried out within their projects. Every team formed is responsible for its own task and organization. A guiding principle at Google is "fix what is wrong," giving the whole institution a shared approach to problem-solving. The engineers at Google also benefit from a system called the 20% program, which allows them to dedicate 20% of their total working hours to projects and tasks they are personally interested in. This system has proven effective because it reduces stress and promotes creative thinking (Hierling, Yeh, Tai & Yu, 2007).

Employees also consider the workplace to be exceptional because of the relaxed attitude and environment the company offers. They may dress casually at work, where hard work and passion matter far more than appearance. Moreover, all employees have the option of owning part of the company through stock options, which make every individual and their contribution a genuine stake in Google (Weber, 2007).

Characteristics of Google Employees

Most employees at Google are engineers. As stated by Eric Flatt, a software engineer at the company, "We are a company built by engineers for engineers" (Garvin et al., 2013, p. 2). Google also sets high standards for recruitment to ensure it employs personnel with the highest level of talent. The company evaluates resumes looking for key indicators that a candidate will perform well — including integrity — in addition to demonstrating high intellectual capacity (Garvin et al., 2013, p. 2). Google specifically seeks personnel who make a great contribution to the company's human capital, which encompasses the experience, talents, abilities, and values of its workforce. As noted in the case study, the company looks for four qualities during the interview process: knowledge and understanding relevant to the role, leadership ability, the manner in which the candidate thinks, and the value of being part of Google. The company attracts young, hard-working individuals who desire autonomy in their work and who are diligent, determined, and perfectionistic (Garvin et al., 2013, p. 3).

Google has cultivated a culture in which conceptualization and imagination are respected and appreciated, and in which authority derives from peer admiration. According to Zemsky (n.d.), this form of respect is referred to as referent power — influence and authority centered upon identification with, appeal to, or admiration for the manager or leader. The company also employs individuals who are intelligent and firm in their beliefs, preferring capability over work experience. The established organizational culture at Google fosters a work environment that is both inventive and open, permitting workers to share ideas and perspectives without inhibition.

Google operates a flat organizational structure — one that does not focus on hierarchy but instead encourages a philosophy of cooperation and joint effort. Wirthman (2014) argues that flat structures are most effective when a corporation's primary focus is innovation and novelty, a description that fits Google from its very inception. Novelty takes into account what consumers prefer, what is feasible in the market, and what is conceivable with available technology. To remain relevant in its industry, it is essential for Google to continue innovating, a challenge the company has consistently met.

The company continuously seeks new ways to be inventive, to generate new products and services on the internet, and to provide end users with a faster, smoother search experience. For this reason, Google hires creative personnel who inspire an innovative and dynamic work environment. The company also engages in conceptual marketing that includes comprehensive brand representation, return on investment, and consumer satisfaction. As noted by Garvin et al. (2013), the company's revenue has risen every subsequent year, reflecting its keen attention to consumer needs. The overall corporate differentiation is evident through the Oxygen 8 attributes.

References

Bryant, A. (2011). Google's quest to build a better boss. New York Times.

Garvin, D. A. (2013). How Google measures high-scoring management. The Hindu.

Garvin, D. A., Wagonfeld, A. B., & Kind, L. (2013). Google's Project Oxygen: Do managers matter? Harvard Business School.

Google. (2010). The Google culture. Google Company.

Hierling, M., Yeh, Tai, C., & Yu, J. (2007). Organizational culture and the case of Google. GRIN Verlag.

Parks, S. D. (2005). Leadership can be taught: A bold approach for a complex world. Harvard Business School Publishing.

Scott, V. A. (2008). Google. GRIN Verlag.

Shanmugam. (2013). Do managers matter?

Weber, S. (2007). Organizational behavior: Google corporate culture in perspective. GRIN Verlag.

Wirthman, L. (2014). Is flat better? Zappos ditches hierarchy to improve company performance. Forbes.

Zemsky, B. (n.d.). Types of power.