Executive Summary

The influence of motivation and organisational culture has frequently been associated with
organisational behaviour. For instance, not only do motivated employees tend to display
greater overall performance (Ghaffari et al. 2017), organisational culture has also been shown
to affect the workplace environment (Aboramadan et al. 2020). In addition, though the two
variables have been seen to influence organisational behaviour independently, evidence from
literature highlights how the two can actually interact to affect firm performance. By creating
a strong organisational culture as well as an environment where employees are motivated to
work to their full potential, Google effectively applies the two factors to maximise firm
efficiency. As such, the essay outlines the influence of motivation and organisational culture
on organisational behaviour, using theoretical explanations, as well as how the multinational
corporation of Google applies these areas of research to practice.
Introduction
Organisational culture and motivation have both been seen to influence organisational
behaviour (Ojo 2010; Ghaffari et al. 2017) and employee performance. In fact, the two
variables have been seen to influence each other in an organisational setting (Sokro 2012). In
order to boost morale and overall employee performance, Google claims that its mission is to
organise the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful. To accomplish
this, it relies on its employees, so it fosters an organisational culture that is open, innovative,
and smart, with an emphasis on excellence and hands-on involvement to enable
motivation (Smithson 2019). As such, this essay evaluates how Google effectively manages
its organizational culture and motivational practices in order to enhance firm performance.

Organisational Culture and Motivation in academic research

In order to enhance performance and stay competitive in today’s dynamic business

environment, it is imperative for businesses to understand organisational behaviour (Frederick
2014). Indeed, a number of factors collectively influence behaviour within the workplace,
including organisational culture. While it is universally agreed that the concept of
organisational culture exists and plays a crucial role in shaping organisational behaviour, there
is little consensus regarding its meaning (Watkins, 2013). Drawing from the study of Schein
(2010), organisational culture can be described as the common values, beliefs and practices
that are learnt and shared between organisational members while solving problems of external
adaptation and internal integration.

This intangible resource serves as an integrating force that directs organisational behaviour in
the direction desired by management (Giberson et al. 2009). Though, while some studies
document a positive impact of organisational culture on firm performance (Aboramadan et al.
2020), others report no association between the two (Yesil and Kaya 2013), making it difficult
to categorically determine the link between culture and business success. Perhaps these
disparities in findings are related to the different types of cultures present within organisation.
While some organisational cultures may positively impact performance outcomes, others may
have a negatively influence firm performance (Fekete and Böcskei 2011).

Indeed, several theories have been devised to highlight the typology of cultures. For instance,
according to Deal and Kennedy (1982)’s model, organisational culture is dependent upon two
key dimensions. Firstly, the risk associated with organisational activities, and secondly, the
speed at which organisations receive feedback on the success of decisions and strategies.
Through splitting each dimension into high and low, 4 company cultures were outlined. While
the tough guy, macho culture describes an environment where employees regularly take risks
and receive rapid feedback on their actions e.g. through financial rewards, the work hard play
hard culture encompasses employees that take few risks but nonetheless receive quick
feedback, encouraging high levels of low-risk activity. The bet-your-company culture is
characterised by a high-risk, slow feedback environment where years pass before employees
are able to evaluate the success of their actions. Finally, employees in a process culture make
low risk decisions and receive little or no feedback, leaving them oblivious on the success of
what they do and instead directing attention to how it’s done. Though in practice, culture is
not homogenous (Williams et al. 1993). Hence, Deal and Kennedy (2000) argue that no
organisation solely adopts a single type of culture. Thus, a mix of all four, as well as the
presence of sub-cultures are likely observed within complex organisations. In fact, the authors
stress that a blend of the most positive characteristic of all four cultures generates the
strongest company culture.

In addition, to organisational culture, motivation plays a critical role in influencing employee

behaviour. This psychological concept has been defined as a process that gives behaviour
purpose and direction (Kreitner 1995) with research documenting a link between motivation
and employee performance (Ghaffari et al. 2017). However, many individuals tend to display
varying levels of motivation, especially in organisational setting, as a result of multiple factors
such as external support or job satisfaction (Jurburg et al. 2017). Thus, motivating individuals
extrinsically. Alternatively, such differences could be accounted for by the innate forces of
intrinsic motivation that focus on internal feelings to drive goal directed behaviour (Ryan and
Deci 2000). In fact, the overall concept of motivation has been historically explained by two
subsets of theoretical ideologies; content as well as process theories with content theories
focusing more on specific things that actually motivate individuals, including peoples relative
strengths and goals (Dinibutun 2012).

For instance, a key theory within content explanations is Maslow’s Hierarchy of needs
(Maslow 1943) which is often portrayed as a pyramid with hierarchical levels that individuals
serially progress through. At the very bottom of the structure are one’s physiological needs
that are absolutely essential for survival, hence motivating an individual to prioritise the
gratification of these. Once such needs are satisfied, the next step of the pyramid involves
motivation to find safety and security. In the modern world this may involve financial security
or health. Next, after both physiological and safety needs are fulfilled, human’s tend to be
motivated socially by seeking affection or, in an organisational setting, a connected group
work. At the fourth level of the hierarchy the drive to satisfy esteem needs becomes
significant as one is motivated to achieve status and recognition. Finally, at the highest level
of self-actualisation, individuals are now motivated to seek out their potential and live through
exciting experiences. As such, they look for challenging opportunities and advancement.
Though revolutionary, Maslow’s (1943) theory has previously been criticised as it doesn’t
take into account employee and situational differences thus it cannot be applied universally
(Kaur 2013). As also, different cultures have been seen to progress through the model
differently once again showing how individual differences can affect its efficacy. On the
contrary, the model does have a lot of evidence to support its relevance including the
importance of money decreasing as one progresses through the pyramid (Oleson 2004). Thus,
perhaps it may still be applicable for some individuals and cultures.

Though organisational culture and motivation have been shown to independently influence
organisational behaviour, it is important to consider whether the two interact (Ott 1989). As
highlighted by Deal and Kennedys (1989) Model, organisations adopting a process culture
tend to be very bureaucratic. Though, such a characteristic may serve to negatively impact
employee motivation. Indeed, prior research has shown that a less hostile organisational
culture has a more positive effect on the motivation of employees (Sokro 2012). In fact, by
displaying a strong organisational culture and supporting the needs of employees (Owoyemi
and Ekwoaba 2014), companies have previously seen a spike in motivation within the
business further suggesting a link between the two variables. Further supporting this, Yusof et
al. (2016) report that a supportive organisational culture has a greater positive influence on
employee motivation than a bureaucratic culture. Although, it should be considered that the
study investigated organisational culture and employee motivation within the private sector,
and thus findings may not be generalisable to the public sector. Nevertheless, the findings of
Panagiotis et al. (2014) highlight a negative association between a bureaucratic culture type
and employee motivation within the public sector, corroborating the findings of Yusof et al.
(2016). Thus, it is likely that bureaucratic organisations with a process corporate culture stifle
the motivation of employees. Extending the link between the two variables across industries
in recent times, Smithers and Walker (2010) corroborate the above findings within the
construction industry, suggesting that the positive effect of a supportive organisational culture
on employee motivation may be a universal influence.
Further evidencing a link, organisational culture provides a framework within which
motivational tools that influence employee behaviour can be implemented (Valentina and
Ileana, 2017). Perhaps having an organisational culture that provides purposeful tasks and
opportunities for advancement motivates employee actions in a way that allows them to
progress through the hierarchy of needs. For instance, when employees discover that the
culture created by the organisation provides them with the means necessary to attain self-
actualisation, individuals are likely to become highly motivated when completing these tasks,
consequently offering their best performance to the organisation (Jerome 2013). On the
contrary, considering that motivation influences our behaviour (Rabideau 2005) it may be
possible that it is the employee motivation that influences organisational culture. For instance,
motivation provides us with the means to compete with others (Rabideau 2005). As such, a
workplace environment with a large number of intrinsically motivated employees may lead to
a competitive organisational culture which has been seen to be overwhelming for some
individuals (Jones et al. 2017).

It is also important to consider that while a strong and positive organisational culture can aid
the motivation of employees, a hostile work environment may be detrimental to workers as
well as their progress (Smithers and Walker 2000). As such, organisations should provide
their employees with challenging opportunities to boost their motivation and avoid a negative
work force. The role of ethnicity on organisational culture also cannot be ignored as ethnic
culture largely influences personality and thus, overall organisational culture (Erastova 2016).
Therefore, due to role ethnic backgrounds play in shaping the culture of an organisation, it
may be difficult for businesses to change their organisational culture so as to enhance
employee motivation.

Gizem

Google and Motivation

Various theories and frameworks have been proposed to describe workplace motivation. Even
though most theories take different approaches, there is one universally accepted similarity:
there are extrinsic and intrinsic motivational factors. Intrinsic motivation is the desire to do
something for the pleasure and satisfaction it provides (Deci et al. 1989). Whereas extrinsic
motivation is the desire to perform an activity to obtain positive outcomes or avoid negative
consequences (Deci and Ryan 2000). Ryan (2014) concurs arguing there is no single theory of
motivation that provides an all-encompassing and comprehensive view of the complexities of
human behaviour; however, some theories are better suited to some situations than others,
while others complement each other.

In terms of content theories, it can be argued that Herzberg's Two Factor Theory best
describes the motivation style used at Google, supporting Dion (2006) who claims that
Herzberg's theory is one of the most important content theories in job satisfaction. According
to Herzberg's theory, certain factors are motivating ('motivating factors'), whereas other
factors, when ‘missing,' lead to dissatisfaction ('hygiene factors'). According to Majumder
(2016), Google's employee motivation model prioritises results over the people delivering
those results. This suggests that Google prioritises hygiene factors first, and then, once those
are met, Google concentrates on acknowledging employee accomplishments and providing
opportunities to learn and grow.

Google provides hygiene factors such as a good salary and perks such as health care and
vacation time. It also offers free gourmet food and snacks on an ongoing basis, saving
employees time and money (D'Onfro 2015). Employees can also use the company's products
to complete tasks and beta-test products that have not yet been released to the public (Google
2021). Google also provides a well-developed work environment (Coleman 2016), which
fosters fun and interactions, thereby increasing the company's creativity and productivity
levels. All these benefits are not intrinsic to the job and are not necessarily motivating factors
for the employee, but they do reduce dissatisfaction.

In terms of motivational factors, Google conducts mid-project performance reviews to ensure

that its employees are recognised for their outstanding performance and creativity (Li 2020).
Google's 80/20 rule is another motivator implemented by the company, in which employees
devote 80 percent of their working time to tasks related to their primary job and the remaining
20 percent to work on "passion projects" that the employee believes will benefit Google
(D'Onfro 2015). Google also regularly implements career advancement projects for its
employees based on the company's career development programmes to ensure that they have
opportunities for growth (Lombardo 2017).

Google motivation factors are inherent in the job and lead to positive attitudes toward the job
because they satisfy employees' 'need for growth or self-actualization,' which can be linked to
Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs theory (Maslow 1954), making them similar (Ganta 2014).
Figure 1 summarises Herzberg's comparisons of motivating and hygiene factors (1959).

Figure 1: Comparisons between the Two Factors of Herzberg’s Theory

Unlike Herzberg (1959), Rynes et al. (2005) criticises this theory based on how it is
developed, arguing that some factors, such as pay, can be both hygiene and motivating
factors. As a result, unlike Google, managers who deal with unskilled labour face difficulties
in applying this theory, making it unsuitable.

In terms of process theories of motivation, the equity theory, which treats all employees
equally in all positions of the workplace, may best describe Google's motivational style
(Google 2021). According to the equity theory, human motivation is determined by how
individuals perceive their inputs and outputs in comparison to others (Adam 1963). When the
person's perceived inputs and outputs match those of the referent, equity is maintained (Ryan
2016). When the person's and their referent's perceived inputs and outputs differ, feelings of
inequity arise (Taylor et al. 2009).

Google has an open-door policy for its employees, allowing them to address any issues they
encounter and contribute to any changes they desire (Vozza 2018). Teams are also created
based on individual strengths and chemistry. This is critical for determining the team's success
as well as everyone's contribution to the group's mutual objective (D'Onfro 2015). This allows
Google to promote diversity and cultural awareness because, even when providing free food,
they provide different cuisines that meet their employees' cultures, thus motivating each
member equally (Google 2021b). Contrary, Carrell and Dittrich (1978) criticises the equity
theory arguing that people may perceive equity/inequity not only in terms of the specific
inputs and outcomes of a relationship, but also in terms of the overall system that determines
those inputs and outputs.

Conclusion
In conclusion, it can be argued that not only do motivation and organisational culture
independently influence organisational behaviour, with literature evidencing an interaction
between the two factors. While motivation has been shown to affect organisational culture,
the organisational culture adopted by an organisation simultaneously serves to influence
employees’ motivation. Indeed, motivation is a complex issue that managers seek to
understand (Amabile 1993), as it reflects not only on the unique needs of each employee, but
also on their widely disparate performance ratings (Nahavandi and Malekzadeh 1999). In
addition, by applying a strong organisation culture, multi-national corporations can improve
employee performance thus influencing overall organisational behaviour. As a result,
companies should strive to emulate Google's success by emphasising employee motivation
and organisational culture.
Kreitner, R. (1995). Management (6th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370-96