Internal Organization and Power Relations at Google

You Can Be Serious Without a Suit (Or Can You?)

Over the past 20 years in the UK, the US, and elsewhere there has been major growth in what Andy Pratt defines as the Cultural and Creative Industries - Film, Music, Television, Fashion, Technology and other related fields that contribute to the ‘knowledge economy’ as outlined by Peter Drucker (Hesmondhalgh and Pratt 2005; Drucker 2002). In turn, these countries have seen an economic shift to what Richard Florida defines as a ‘Creative Economy’ rooted in three important institutional changes that make up the ‘social structure of creativity’. These include; new economic systems (specifically venture capitalism) that create opportunities for technical innovations and entrepreneurship, new models of actual labour whereby work is less physical and based on highly developed skills and talent, and the rise of the ‘social & cultural milieu’ - the support and encouragement by society to further the production of creative goods (Florida, 2002). Without these fundamental shifts in the economic structure, an organization such as Google, one of the very start-ups to which Florida refers, would never have gained the initial support and financial backing that paved the way for the company to flourish and grow into the iconic giant we know today.

Having interned at Google for over 4 months, I can say with steady confidence that I know the internal structure and organization of the company very well. Although Google now employs thousands of people in hundreds of offices across the world, the company prides itself on promoting the culture and structure of the startup that was founded in 1998. Rooted in the concept of what Chris Bilton refers to as ‘soft control’, Google’s focus is on horizontally structured, project-based work that reflects one of their ‘ten things’ philosophies: “you can be serious without a suit.” As Bilton describes it:

“In pursuit of creativity, today’s managers are encouraged to reject control and hierarchy in favor of release and individualism...hierarchies are flatter, organizational cultures are self-consciously ‘casual’, and managers have removed their neckties. In this system of creative management or ‘soft control’, managers seek to remove constraints in order to free individual workers to express themselves, to take risks and to challenge conventional thinking. Consequently their employees will, of course, be more productive and inventive.” (Bilton, 2007, pg. 66)

In this paper I will analyze this statement as it relates to the Google culture using examples from my work on the Google @ Cannes Lions Festival event, as well as my general experiences in the office environment.
While the overall organization of Google is hierarchical, projects are run in a very specific way in order to encourage and foster creativity. Hierarchies exist in that departments are well structured.  For example, the UK events team is run by the head of events. The events team is part of the larger marketing team, which is run by the head of UK marketing. The head of UK marketing then reports to the head of Global marketing. Thus, there are people with more senior titles than others, but there is little emphasis on this when creating teams and assigning projects.
The most in-depth experience I’ve had on a project here at Google was our Creative Sandbox event in Cannes. Working closely with the Large Agency and Advertiser Marketing team, we created a cool, fun, free space on the beach at the Cannes Lions festival for media and ad agency executives to enjoy smoothies, wi-fi, and product demos.
Joining the staff in April, I could see Chris Bilton’s concept of ‘soft control’ clearly outlined. Firstly, the project-based organization of the core team was apparent - none of the 4 main members were working on any other projects; their focus was quite one note and they could immerse themselves in the creative process for this event. Secondly, the team was structured horizontally and not vertically. Instead of 3 people from the events department who all reported up a chain of authority, the team consisted of members from across different departments. Marketing, mobile, events, and advertising worked together with no chosen ‘lead’ or ‘manager’ of the project. In meetings, things were run democratically with consideration for peoples’ opinions and ideas. The final aspect of the project was the freedom allowed to the team members to choose which aspects of the event interested them. Roles and responsibilities - i.e. who is in charge of food and beverage, who is in charge of demo areas, who is in charge of design and production - were all assigned based on interest. For myself, I was able to ask to run the entertainment for our VIP party, which included three performances and the overall technical aspects of the evening. I was given time to choose artists and performers that I thought would be a good fit, and had the overall final say on decisions. This freedom to create paired with the laissez-fare structure of the team and project proved to be a great success on site and lead to an impressive final product for Google.

However, Bilton argues that “the discipline and systematic organization required for real creativity (innovation + value; divergent thinking + convergent thinking)” must remain in order for a company to flourish (2007, pg 67). These constraints absolutely exist at Google. From our branding tactics (always use Google’s colors in event design) to our event best practices (create a marketing timeline spreadsheet at the outset of each event), there are certain boundaries in place in the events team which are meant to control the direction of our creativity. Furthermore, while budgets are easier to come by at a huge corporation like Google, the ideals of the thrifty, scrappy start-up are still put into practice when executives approve and delegate event budgets. In the end, it is true that while Google purports to promote a free-flowing, quirky and creative environment, there is an undoubted balance between release and control that must exist for the business to succeed.