Organization Theory - Final Exam March 2014 Michael Byriel Harbech
Organisations operating in the technology sector are facing requirements for rapid innovation and cutthroat competition. Google has vastly increased its organisational portfolio to include much more than the core search-engine. From driverless cars to prolonging life, Google is investing (McNicoll, 2013), and collaboration and learning have become the new buzzwords within tech firms to gain value from this portfolio diversity.
This paper seeks to shed light on how Google manages the dynamics of collaboration and learning within its organisation and how they harness the potential innovative power.
Consequently, the following sections will seek to answer the research question: "How has
Google used intra-firm collaboration and learning to continuously innovate, and what implications does this have for the organisation's institutional rules?"
The research question above leads to an argument suggesting how Google's management is actively shaping the prerequisites for Communities of Practice (CoPs) in order to advance collaboration and learning, and how this shapes a ceremonial conformity to innovation.
This is achieved through the creation of an analytical framework by 1) Defining tacit knowledge as an asset shared through social interaction. 2) Establishing how CoPs are essential to learning. 3) Theorising on how social, physical, cultural and virtual structures can be engineered to comprise the prerequisites for CoPs. 4) Establishing how management can promote collaboration by hiring the right people. 5) Relating this focus on to the theory of institutionalised organizations. Consequently the theory of CoPs is supported by a range of other concepts and theories as well as discussed in relation to the theory of institutionalised organisations and myths.
The practices found in Google are scrutinised and related to consider the implications for intra-firm collaboration. These are 1) the 20% time practice. 2) The physical and virtual spaces. 3) The free food programme. 4) The role of management. 5) The hiring procedures.
This leads to a discussion of the implications of the focus on collaboration and CoPs on rationalised myth and ceremonial contrary to efficient institutions.
1

Organization Theory - Final Exam March 2014 Michael Byriel Harbech
Key concepts and analytical framework
This paper seeks to analyse a specific manifestation of collaboration and learning at the organisational level. This will be done through an application of the concept tacit knowledge and how it is spread through CoPs. Then parameters for facilitating the manifestations of CoPs are identified. The last part of this section seeks to consider the theoretical implications of collaboration and learning through the theory of institutionalised organisations and myths. Furthermore this paper attempts to apply logico-scientific explanations (Hatch, 2013: 298) and an objective epistemology and ontology, in order to explain cultural phenomena from the perspective of an organisation's management. In other words, symbolic aspects are considered, but from the modern perspective of how to manage them.
Initially it is necessary to consider the incentives and reasons for focusing on collaboration and learning within an organisation. This is not merely a question of formality, but can be considered highly inter-subjective. Wenger wrote how "[w]e each experience knowing in our own ways" (Wenger, 2000: 226). In other words not all knowledge can be codified.
The concept of tacit knowledge sheds some light on this (Hatch, 2013: 304). The intangibility of knowledge as a phenomenon is evident considering Polanyi's statement,
"we know much more than we know we know." (Gherardi, 2000: 214), and the dichotomy of propositional and practical knowledge which expresses the duality of knowing how and being able to (Gherardi, 2013: 216). Furthermore tacit knowledge is expressed, as Cook &
Yanow found, communally and collaboratively (Hatch, 2013: 304), i.e. tacit knowledge is unfolded as an asset through social collaboration. On this basis it is possible to assume an existence of an organisational asset in the shape of tacit knowledge that cannot be codified.
In other words, collaboration can lead to learning and an innovative environment.
Innovation as constituted through learning which is produced by social activities and intrafirm collaboration is a rather vague description of the creation and unfolding of tacit knowledge. Through a consideration of the theory of CoPs, the theoretical implications of the transfer of learning and ideas can be expounded. CoPs are comprised of actors with three concepts of belonging. 1) A joint enterprise fostering a coherent understanding of the group. 2) Communal interactions creating the concept of mutuality where "[p]eople [...]
2

Organization Theory - Final Exam March 2014 Michael Byriel Harbech know how to interact productively and who to call of help or advice" (Wenger, 2000: 230).
3) A "Shared repertoire of communal resources - language, routines [...]" (Wenger, 2000:
229). Furthermore "[c]ommunities of practice can cross boundaries drawn between business units and projects teams, hierarchies, or any other dimension of social structure.
Individuals can move between different communities, sharing and brokering knowledge as they do so." (Hatch, 2013: 116). The concept is an organisationally vague entity, however,
"[p]articipating in these CoPs is essential to our learning" (Wenger, 2000: 229). This leads to a discussion of whether these communities can be managed and created or whether they are ultimately ephemeral and transient episodes of unstructured social interaction.
A discussion of whether CoPs can be managed and cultivated is one of an objective ontology versus a subjective. Inherent in the research question of this paper is an objective ontology since it attempts to describe how a phenomenon is managed and classified within an organisation and "[t]reating all phenomena as if they are objects [...]"(Hatch, 2013: 11).
The theory of CoPs considers inter-subjective phenomena which are not easily analysed from modern perspective and objective ontology. In order to overcome this tension, CoPs will not be considered from an individual level which would require an interpretivist ontology. This paper will focus on the structural preconditions for their existence, not management of the communities in themselves. This does present an analytical shortcoming in that the outcome of the interaction within the CoP will not be scrutinised - only its requirements. An approach of this nature corresponds perfectly with Hatch's description of management in CoPs being enablers (Hatch, 2013: 116). I.e. from a modern perspective the content of a community of practice cannot be managed, but the facilitating structures can. The next two paragraphs will consider these facilitating parameters.
The prerequisites for the existence of CoPs can include social, physical and virtual structures. Social structures define roles and groups within an organisation (Hatch, 2013:
90) and can thus also promote informality - a requirement for CoPs.
Physical structure can promote open dialogue and communication through the concept of proximity which facilitates spontaneous encounters (Hatch, 2013: 206), consequently rendering communal interactions, a requisite for CoPs, more likely. It is not the stereotypical open office spaces that is meant, Hatch has disproved their perceived communication-enhancing effect
3

Organization Theory - Final Exam March 2014 Michael Byriel Harbech
(Hatch, 2013: 207), but instead physical surroundings facilitating spontaneous encounters across teams, e.g. coffee stations and playrooms. Martin & Siehl's typology of organisational culture provides an insight into the dynamics this develops (Hatch, 2013:
159). CoPs are diverse, consequently managing the preconditions for their existence can involve preventing silos. Silos describe a degree of containment between groups preventing the necessary collaboration and social interaction to foster CoPs . As an elaboration on this, it should be noted how the virtual structures of an organisation can also promote connections and collaboration (Hatch, 2013: 281). In other words physical and virtual structures can prevent divisional isolation and in fact promote spontaneous social interaction.
Another element in facilitating the existence of CoPs is ensuring the most appropriate culture of employees, i.e. organisational members actively engaging in social activities and having unique competencies (Wenger, 2000: 230). Wenger describes in great detail how the identity of members of a CoP is essential to its trajectory.
"Member of a community embody a set of paradigmatic trajectories that provide material for newcomer to construct their own trajectory through a community and beyond. In the generational encounter between newcomers and established members, the identities of both get expanded."
(Wenger, 2000: 241).
This indicates a constant interplay and conversation between existing and entering individuals of an organisation. As before, this paper does not presume how the specific culminations of this interplay can be managed, however the overall trajectory seems to be subject to managerial influence through intensive hiring procedures. By selecting the right individuals to enter the organisation, management can steer the continuing conversation which can lead to collaboration, a catalyst for CoPs and learning.
Actively promoting innovation through CoPs can have implications for an organisation. By organising the facilitating elements for collaboration and learning to create CoPs specifically to drive innovation, the value of innovation can be considered ceremonial as opposed to measured in efficiency. In other words, innovation is a goal in itself, instead of a method of achieving efficiency. This is based on the theory of institutionalized organisations where "Ceremonial criteria of worth and ceremonially derived production
4

Organization Theory - Final Exam March 2014 Michael Byriel Harbech functions are useful to organizations: they legitimate organizations with internal participants [...]" (Meyer & Rowan, 1977: 351). Consequently a focus on CoPs and innovation can result in ceremonial instead of efficient organisational institutions. This can create a rationalised myth of innovation. The perceived imperative of innovation is creating a rational myth of collaboration. It is acknowledged that this is a stretch of Meyer
& Rowan's original theory which already encompasses innovation (Meyer & Rowan,
1977:353), though not as a myth in itself.
This section has shown how collaboration and learning can be engineered through facilitating various requirements for the existence of CoPs. Specifically these are 1) Social, physical and virtual structures can enhance communication and prevent silos. 2) Hiring practices cultivate collaboration. Furthermore it has been shown how this can lead to a ceremonial rather than efficient focus on innovation. This framework will be applied on
Google by 1) Establishing how they have created the prerequisites for CoPs by managing the parameters above. 2) Considering the implications of these systems and whether an organisational myth of innovation can be hinted.
Google's use of collaboration and learning: 5 parameters
This section will be dedicated to analysing Google as an organisation through the framework developed above. Consequently this paper will endeavour to relate Google's organisational practices with the theoretical possibility of managing the prerequisites for cultivating CoPs - a catalyst for learning. This will be done by considering 5 practices. 1)
Google's 20% time projects. 2) The free food programme. 3) The physical surroundings of the offices and virtual spaces. 4) The role of management. 5) The extensive hiring practices of Google.
The concept of 20% time is "a full day a week during which engineers can work on whatever they want." (Wojcicki, 2011). This practice reveals an understanding at Google of innovation not being a manageable phenomenon, but an ephemeral process that can be encouraged through the right structures. By creating a day a week where employees are free to tinker and collaborate around passion projects, they support the informality of
CoPs, through a breakdown of formal procedures and requirements. In fact, what it is
5

Organization Theory - Final Exam March 2014 Michael Byriel Harbech encouraging seems to be exactly the joint enterprise, mutuality and shared repertoire of
CoPs. Indeed: "These grouplets have practically no budget, and they have no decisionmaking authority. What they have is a bunch of people who are committed to an idea and willing to work to convince the rest of the company to adopt it." (Mediratta, in Bick,
2007). This institutionalisation of informality advances innovation and allows Google to
"to tap into the many talents of its employees." (He, 2013). This is substantiated by the fact that many of Google's core products are a result of 20% time projects. These include
Gmail, Google News and Adsense, an advertising programme which now constitutes 25% of Google's over $50 billion revenue (Mims, 2013). Consequently this management practice creates the appropriate surroundings for CoPs to occur.
The 20% time practice has shown how management has removed procedures and formal practices to allow for CoPs. This is, however, not in itself an adequate measure since it only creates the boundaries wherein collaboration can occur without actively encouraging it. Managers can further facilitate the prerequisites of CoPs by giving not only time but also incentives for employees to meet. Through their free food offerings Google effectively creates an arena for spontaneous ideas to flow casually over the physical structure of a dinner.
"Dining creates opportunities for “casual collisions,” as they’re called — brainstorming sessions among employees from different divisions — that have led to products such as Gmail. The food program, some say, is a model for how companies should engage employees — and perhaps make them more productive." (Hernandez, 2014)
Google's dining offerings creates a platform for "casual collisions" effectively filling the vacuum of the 20% time practice with an incentive to collaborate and learn across divisions, teams and projects.
These casual collisions are also encouraged by management through the physical layout of
Google's office space. As Mary Hatch (2013: 207) found physical structures promoting intimate conversations and group interactions are more effective in creating a culture of communication and dialogue than is the paradigm of open office spaces. Google has embraced this and their office spaces have been described as:
6

Organization Theory - Final Exam March 2014 Michael Byriel Harbech
"a labyrinth of play areas; cafes, coffee bars and open kitchens; sunny outdoor terraces with chaises; gourmet cafeterias that serve free breakfast, lunch and dinner; Broadway-theme conference rooms with velvet drapes; and conversation areas designed to look like vintage subway cars." (Stewart, 2013).
Google's offices are creating spaces fostering the informal social interaction necessary for communities to manifest themselves. Furthermore virtual structures in the shape of various intra-nets are facilitating cross-divisional collaboration. Google is indeed harnessing this trend and has an intra-net where information, ideas, and practices are easily shared between individuals (Wellman, 2007 & Mistry, 2007). In other words Google is utilising physical and virtual structures to foster the casual encounters that can lead to CoPs.
Google's active promotion of the structures that facilitate CoPs can further be substantiated with their hiring processes, putting emphasis on acquiring employees with the right attitude towards collaboration and spontaneous socialisation. Apart from competencies, interviewers at Google attempt to evaluate candidates on their "Googliness". "Googliness was a test of the cultural fit between the individual and the company" (Steiber & Alänge,
2013: 248) and more importantly a potential employee's collaborative nature (Google,
2014). The fact that hiring uniquely fitting individuals is a priority for Google is further substantiated by it being normal practice to conduct 5 job interviews per candidate (the number has been cut down from ten) (VanderMeyer, 2012). This corresponds to the previously hinted endeavour of Google's management to create the frames for CoPs.
Google's management's focus on new employees having a "Googley" collaborative nature effectively constitutes a mechanism for controlling and encouraging the creation of CoPs by ensuring all members of the organisation are open to spontaneous social encounters and casual sharing of ideas.
Thus far this paper has shown how Google's management is using a variety of tools to facilitate and engineer the preconditions of CoPs in order to foster collaboration and learning. The role of management itself, however, can also be seen to be part of these preconditions. Steiber & Alänge (2013) in their study of the culture at Google found how management was not perceived in any traditionally authoritarian way. They found how:
7

Organization Theory - Final Exam March 2014 Michael Byriel Harbech
"Leaders at Google were to act as cultural ambassadors and as connectors, meaning they should quickly absorb and diffuse information from other parts of the organization to their team, and serve as facilitators in the innovation process. Leaders should empower their employees, trust and support them in new projects, and minimize obstacles to innovation."
(Steiber & Alänge, 2013: 249).
This managerial culture is achieving the preconditions for CoPs. It encourages individuals to create interactions across formally defined roles and thus share information with employees having different competencies than themselves. Moreover the focus is not on innovation deriving from top down, but instead to maximise the shared output of the each individual’s tacit knowledge - like Cook & Yanow’s study of flute manufacturing (Hatch,
2013: 304) this facilitates many different employees contributing with unique inputs, creating a situation where, as Aristotle said, "The whole is greater than the sum of its parts".
This empirical section has shown how Google is applying 5 parameters to engineer the best conditions for the manifestation of CoPs in order to continuously promote intra-firm collaboration and learning. The next section will discuss the implications of the managerial style and drive for innovation.
Google's collaboration and rationalised myth of innovation
The 5 parameters outlined in the previous section shows Google as a dynamic, collaborative and non-hierarchical organisation focusing on the spontaneous and uncontrollable aspects of learning and innovation. They promote organically created CoPs where the outcome is unmanageable, i.e. the specific outcome is not what management is interested in, innovation is. The continuous production and reproduction of CoPs facilitated by Google's management have but one goal - innovation. Not innovation within a specific area, product or field, but innovation for innovation's sake. This focus has, as previously described, manifested itself in hugely beneficial ideas. On the other hand,
Google is no stranger to failure - Google Video Player being an obvious example
(Wojcicki, 2011). It could be speculated that this focus on innovation represents a rationalised myth. In other words, Google's drive for innovation is based on imperatives defined by the environment, and lack of innovation is noted as a loss of legitimacy (The
8

Organization Theory - Final Exam March 2014 Michael Byriel Harbech
Economist, 2009). Thus it is not derived from the organisation's own need for efficiency.
This can be seen as a detachment of innovation from efficiency and consequently a removal of the focus of the company on the core business. In other words an increasingly innovation-focused industry can be seen to have altered Google's focus to be led "not by a true production function, but by ceremonial definition" (Meyer & Rowan, 1977: 353) which is not related to parameters of efficiency. This can explain the recent moves to curb the free uncontrolled innovation (Kotter, 2013). The implications of innovation and change as a rationalised myth to obtain legitimacy is stretching the initial theory of Meyer &
Rowan to the limit, but does have interesting prospects for a tech industry that is increasingly evaluated on its ability to redefine and revolutionise the organisational field.
A paper with a more expansive scope would also consider the implications of Google's environment in pressuring it to constantly innovate. This could be seen as an explanatory factor to management's drive for collaboration shown in this paper.
Conclusion
This paper has endeavoured to answer the research question: How has Google used intrafirm collaboration and learning to continuously innovate and what implications does this have for the organisation's institutional rules? The dominant argument presented above is how Google is managing and engineering the prerequisites for CoPs in an effort to promote collaboration and learning and how this can be seen as an overemphasis on innovation as a ceremonial institution rather than an effective one creating a rational myth of innovation.
The argument is presented through the creation of an analytical framework revolving around the modern perspective. It takes off by defining the value of tacit knowledge and how it is manifested through social interaction. Furthermore the theory of CoPs is expounded and related to a range of manageable prerequisites. Then this theory is related to the theory of institutionalised organisations in a discussion of how they may establish a ceremonial institution of innovation.
This leads to an empirical section progressing through 5 of Google's practices creating the prerequisites for CoPs and intra-firm collaboration. It is argued how the 20% time practice creates a vacuum where spontaneous collaboration can occur. Furthermore the office spaces and Google's intra-net is creating the boundaries in which collaboration can exist.
9

Organization Theory - Final Exam March 2014 Michael Byriel Harbech
This is also the case when considering the extensive free food programme Google is offering and how it promotes casual dinner conversations. Management's perception of itself as connectors further enhances the idea of an orchestrated vacuum in which CoPs can flourish. Google's ability to fit individuals to fill this vacuum further illustrates how they are engineering for collaboration. The focus on collaboration leads to a discussion of whether innovation is a rationalised myth detached from institutional efficiency. This is merely hinted and research with a larger scope is required for any conclusive arguments.
Furthermore the limitations of this paper's focus on the modern perspective should be noted. The analysis is not incorporating the symbolic nature of CoPs but focus on their manageable preconditions. This is positioning the presented argument within a debate of whether culture can be managed, where this paper is assuming the affirmative. With this in mind, Google has actively engineered the prerequisites for CoPs to facilitate collaboration and learning within its organisation. This can have implications for innovation in itself being institutionalised.
10

Organization Theory - Final Exam March 2014 Michael Byriel Harbech
Books & academic articles

Gherardi, Silvia, 2000, "Practice-Based Theorizing on Learning and Knowing in
Organizations", Organization, 7 (2), 211-223

Hatch, Mary J., 2013, Organization Theory: Modern, Symbolic, and Postmodern
Perspectives, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp: 3-18, 90-126, 158-199, 200-227,
269-302, 303-328
 Meyer, J. and B. Rowan, 1977, "Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony", The American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340-363
 Steiber, Annika and Alänge, Sverker, 2013, "A corporate system for continuous innovation: the case of Google Inc.", European Journal of Innovation
Management, 16(2), 243-264
 Wenger, Etienne, 2000, "Communities of Practice and Social Learning Systems",
Organization, 7(2), 225-246
Articles

Bick, Julie, 2007, The Google Way: Give Engineers Room, The New York Times,
<http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/21/jobs/21pre.html?_r=0> 21-okt, Viewed March
2014

He, Laura, 2013, Google's Secrets Of Innovation: Empowering Its Employees, Forbes,
<http://www.forbes.com/sites/laurahe/2013/03/29/googles-secrets-of-innovationempowering-its-employees/>, 29-mar, Viewed March 2014
11

Organization Theory - Final Exam March 2014 Michael Byriel Harbech

Hernandez, Peggy, 2014, At Google, employees nourish big ideas over lunch, Boston,
<http://www.boston.com/business/innovation/blogs/inside-thehive/2014/02/05/google-employees-nourish-big-ideas-overlunch/0Zgb3FbzBu0fzzAYc0IfNM/blog.html> , 06-feb, Viewed March 2014.

Kotter, John, 2013, Google's Best New Innovation: Rules Around '20% Time', Forbes,
<http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnkotter/2013/08/21/googles-best-new-innovationrules-around-20-time/>, 21-aug, Viewed March 2014

McNicoll, Arion, 2013, How Google's Calico aims to fight aging and 'solve death' , CNN,
<http://edition.cnn.com/2013/10/03/tech/innovation/google-calico-aging-death/>, 03okt, Viewed March 2014

Mims, Christopher, 2013, Google Effectively Kills '20 Percent Time,' The Perk That Gave Us
Gmail: Quartz, Huffington Post, <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/16/google-20percent-time_n_3768586.html>, 16-aug, Viewed March 2014

Mistry, Cyrus, 2007, How can you take your Enterprise Search to the next level?, Google,
<http://googleenterprise.blogspot.dk/2007/07/how-can-you-take-your-enterprisesearch.html>, 27-jul, Viewed March 2014

Stewart, James B., 2013, Looking for a Lesson in Google’s Perks, The New York Times,
<http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/16/business/at-google-a-place-to-work-andplay.html?pagewanted=1>, 15-mar, Viewed March 2014

VanderMey, Anne, 2012, Inside Google's recruiting machine, CNN,
<http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2012/02/24/google-recruiting/>, 24-feb, Viewed March
2014

Wellman, Stephen, 2007, Revealed: A Look At Google's Corporate Intranet, Informaton
Week <http://www.informationweek.com/mobile/revealed-a-look-at-googles-corporateintranet/d/d-id/1062077?>, 12-mar, Viewed March 2014
12

Organization Theory - Final Exam March 2014 Michael Byriel Harbech

Wojcicki, Susan, 2011, The Eight Pillars of Innovation, Google,
<http://www.thinkwithgoogle.com/articles/8-pillars-of-innovation.html>, 01-jul, Viewed
March 2014

Google, 2014, How we hire,
<http://www.google.dk/about/careers/lifeatgoogle/hiringprocess/>, Viewed March 2014

The Economist, 2009, Creative tensions, <http://www.economist.com/node/14460051>,
17-sep, Viewed March 2014

The Economist, 2007, Inside the Googleplex,
<http://www.economist.com/node/9719610>, 30-aug, Viewed March 2014
13