Google Case Study

Executive Summary

This report critically examines Alphabet/Google’s strategy and organizational culture using strategic management frameworks such as resource-based view (RBV dynamic capabilities, and the Competing Values Framework (CVF). It evaluates Google’s key resources such as data, algorithms, brand; innovation approaches such as AI-first pivot, ‘moonshots’, 20%-time; and HR practices such as people analytics, psychological safety between 2021–2025. Despite its celebrated creative, “adhocracy” culture, and embracing experimentation and autonomy, Google has introduced more control and structure as it has scaled, especially in response to economic pressures.

For example, CEO Sundar Pichai’s 2023 reorganisation refocused headcount on AI priorities and acknowledged the need for “more complex organizational management structures” as the firm grows. Employees value Google’s collaborative, creative environment; in 2022 one insider survey noted many Googlers demanded greater autonomy in the remote/hybrid era; but employees also report frustration over loss of voice and flexibility when policies tighten; about 66% employees were dissatisfied with mandatory in-office mandates in 2022. The analysis applies Competing Values Framework to show Google as primarily an adhocratic/clan culture that is innovating rapidly, but now incorporating more hierarchical/market elements, and focusing on efficiency & cost-cutting as its mission evolves. It links Resource-Based View/DC theory to real developments: Google’s vast data and AI capabilities such as Gemini models launched in 2024 are unique, hard-to-replicate assets that drive its competitive advantage.

Using these theories, the report highlights tensions between creativity and control in Google’s culture, the need for scale vs. creative freedom, assesses the impact of recent strategy shifts via layoffs & AI investments, and provides strategic recommendations. Key findings include: Google’s portfolio (Search, YouTube, Cloud, “Other Bets”) demonstrates rich resources and dynamic capabilities in AI/cloud, but heightened market/ regulatory pressures now demand more disciplined management. HR practices like Project Oxygen/Aristotle (team effectiveness research) have improved leadership and psychological safety, yet critics warn that subtle controls may undermine autonomy. The report concludes by recommending a balanced approach: preserve Google’s innovation culture by supporting employee autonomy and diversity, which it acknowledges “is inseparable from innovation”, while strengthening governance and agility. Strategic implications for Google’s future include carefully managing the culture-control tradeoff: failure to do so risks talent attrition or slowed innovation, whereas misgovernance could invite regulatory and competitive threats. Overall, this critical evaluation integrates theory and current evidence to offer a deep, balanced assessment of Google’s strategy, culture, innovation and people practices in 2021-25.

1. Introduction

Google and its parent Alphabet Inc. operates in hyper-competitive global markets where digital innovation and data are paramount (Pitre, 2022). This report critically evaluates Google’s strategy and organisational culture from 2021 to 2025. It examines how Google creates and leverages resources such as data & AI to compete (Resource-Based View, Resource-Based View) and adapts to change (Dynamic Capabilities). It also analyzes Google’s culture using models like the Competing Values Framework (Competing Values Framework) and relevant organizational theories such as Schein’s cultural levels and psychological safety. The focus is on real-world developments: Google’s AI strategy involving Gemini and Bard, restructuring & reorganisation post 2023 layoffs, and HR initiatives such as Googlegeist survey and its diversity efforts (Bin Akhtar, 2024; Gupta, 2024). The goal is to assess how effectively Google balances creativity with control, and to draw strategic lessons and recommendations for sustaining innovation and performance. The report draws on recent company reports, industry analyses, and academic studies to ground its critique.

2. Theoretical Frameworks

This section reviews key theories applied to Google:

• Resource-Based View (Resource-Based View) and VRIO: Resource-Based View holds that firms gain sustainable advantage from valuable, rare, inimitable, and non-substitutable resources (Barney 1991). Google’s proprietary assets such as vast user data, highly-tuned search algorithms, and cloud infrastructure are classic Resource-Based View resources. Its brand and network effects that generates millions of users also fit this logic. This research uses VRIO to assess how Google’s resources such as AI research labs, talent, patents, etc. underpin strategy.
• Dynamic Capabilities (DC): Dynamic capabilities are Google’s processes to integrate, build and reconfigure competences amid rapid change (Teece, 2023). Google’s shift to being “AI-first” and its diversification in cloud, hardware, and Other Bets exemplify sensing and seizing new opportunities, reconfiguring its talent and assets accordingly (Alphabet Inc. no date). The research considers how Google senses tech trends such as AI, cloud and retools such as reassigning teams as acquisitions of AI startups.
• Competing Values Framework (Competing Values Framework): Competing Values Framework by Cameron & Quinn identifies four culture types: clan (collaborative, flexible), adhocracy (innovative, outward-looking), market (competitive, results-oriented), and hierarchy (structured, control) (Begum and Siddiqui, 2021). Google’s historically adhocratic/clan culture, valuing creativity, openness and participation; is contrasted with increasing market/hierarchy pressures such as fiscal discipline, performance metrics, etc. The Competing Values Framework helps critique Google’s evolving culture. For example, adhocracy is “entrepreneurial, driven to create new things”, while hierarchy “brings structure and rigor”.
• Ambidexterity and Innovation Management: The research also draws on organizational ambidexterity (de Almeida Guerra and Camargo, 2021); Google must exploit existing products like Search and Ads while exploring new innovations such as Waymo, Verily, and generative AI (Steiber, 2024). This theory highlights tension between routine efficiency and experimental ventures.
  
• Organisational Culture and Psychological Safety: Schein’s 2010 model frames culture in levels such as artifacts, espoused values, and basic assumptions (Blom and Curseu, 2025). Google’s famed “Launch fast” ethos and Project Aristotle’s emphasis on psychological safety demonstrate how culture fosters team innovation (Edmondson 2018; Dimitrakaki, 2022). The paper examines how these cultural values support or conflict with control systems.
• Other Theories: Selected management theories such as Maslow’s needs, McGregor’s Theory Y etc. from recent studies are noted for context (Chen 2024). For HR practices, models of motivation and engagement are applied.

These frameworks provide lenses to interpret Google’s practices: how its resource advantages and capabilities shape strategy, how culture types manifest in behaviours, and how HR policy impacts motivation and creativity.

Top UK Assignment Cities

3. Google’s Strategic Position and Capabilities

3.1 Market Position and Business Segments

Alphabet/Google’s core businesses such as Search, YouTube, and Android, and rapidly growing segments like Google Cloud, Pixel hardware, and AI services define its strategy. Google still dominates online search advertising globally. Using Resource-Based View, its key strengths are network effects, since more users lead to more ad data, which results in better ad targeting; and data pertaining to user behaviour logs (Rafieian and Yoganarasimhan, 2020; Singh et al., 2023). Google’s search algorithms, developed via decades of machine learning, are VRIO: highly valuable and effectively impossible for rivals to replicate fully (Quaranta, Hui and Bhargava, 2025). Recent evidence underscores this: Pichai notes that Google’s “early investments in AI” strengthen its mission and products (D’Cruz, 2023). For example, Google’s Gemini AI models, launched in 2024, set new performance records, highlighting how proprietary models and talent like DeepMind researchers are firm-specific assets (Liu, 2023; Rane, Choudhary and Rane, 2024).

Google Cloud is another key area. Unlike AWS or Azure, Google leverages its data/AI assets to differentiate; cloud services emphasize machine-learning tools (Liu, 2022). Though smaller in market share, Google Cloud’s analytics, and search expertise capabilities align with Resource-Based View: digital platform advantages that are non-substitutable for certain customers (Lee and Jung, 2024). Strategic partnerships with large enterprises amplify these. The company’s diversification into hardware like Pixel phones, Nest devices and consumer apps like Google Maps and Google Play extends its ecosystem, fostering lock-in. All these are resources or platforms that can drive competitive advantage per Resource-Based View.

Top UK Assignment Samples

3.2 Dynamic Capabilities and Adaptation

Google exemplifies dynamic capabilities in responding to industry shifts. The pivot to AI via publicly announced projects like Gemini in August 2024 shows Google sensing the AI era and reconfiguring resources: for example, combining Bard (its chatbot) with the new Gemini model and embedding AI into Workspace and Cloud (Ramchandani et al., 2025). Sundar Pichai explicitly framed AI as central: “For years, we’ve been investing deeply in AI as the single best way to improve Search and all of our products” (Pichai, 2024). This statement indicates Google’s strategic intent and capability to integrate AI across its offerings in Search, Workspace, and Cloud.

Similarly, Google has reallocated talent by halting or downsizing non-core projects through rigorous review processes. In Jan 2023, Pichai announced cuts of about 12,000 roles to align headcount with “highest priorities”. He explained: “Pivoting the company to be AI-first years ago led to groundbreaking advances… these early investments [in AI] mean we have a substantial opportunity” (D’Cruz, 2023). This reflects strategic sense-and-respond: aligning resource allocation to long-term trends. According to dynamic capabilities theory, this redeployment of capital and people, even if painful, is an exercise in reconfiguring competences (Muneeb et al., 2023). Pichai’s message further underscores that constraints (job cuts) can “allow us to bet big” elsewhere, hinting at Google’s resolve to continue exploratory innovation under pressure (D’Cruz, 2023).

3.3 Competition and Strategic Challenges

From Porter’s viewpoint, Google faces intense rivalry from cloud giants like AWS & Microsoft, and AI rivals like OpenAI & Microsoft (Liu, 2022; Rikap, 2023; Kanwar, 2024). Regulatory scrutiny in the forms of privacy, and antitrust is akin to new ‘threats’, but this paer focuses on resources. A VRIO analysis shows threats to Google’s advantages: for example, its ad model can be undermined by privacy rules introduce by GDPR and iOS policy changes, affecting how valuable/adaptable data is (Çalışkan Olgun, 2024; Sokol and Zhu, 2021; Ucar and Yalcintas, 2023). However, Google compensates via building new revenue streams; YouTube subscriptions, for instance, grew 30 million from 2021-22, and its AI premium apps have the potential to attain near absolute monopoly (Bertaglia, Goanta and Iamnitchi, 2024). Strategic foresight in areas like healthcare; DeepMind’s AlphaFold structures driving drug discovery for example; and sustainability measures via renewable-powered data centers creates new resource bundles (Prodan et al., 2025; Desai et al., 2024).

Google’s internal strengths such as strong brand, data, talent, and culture of innovation have been effectively leveraged and reconfigured (dynamic capabilities) to sustain growth. Frameworks like Resource-Based View and DC explain Google’s overall positioning and choice of AI/cloud as strategic focus.

4. Innovation Strategy

Innovation is central to Google’s strategy (Kusumaningtyas, 2024). This paper examines how Google fosters innovation and the role of R&D portfolios, incubation, and processes.

4.1 Innovation Processes and Structure

Google historically promoted “20% time”, an unofficial policy letting engineers spend one day a week on side projects (Walker, 2011). This practice explicitly linked employee autonomy with corporate innovation: their “creative detours have spawned hit offerings like Gmail, Google Maps, and AdSense” (Talent Management Institute, 2024). By aligning personal passion with corporate goals, Google unlocked discretionary creativity. Such intrapreneurial time reflects ambidexterity; enabling exploratory innovation alongside core work. Google also institutionalized innovation through Alphabet X – formerly Google X, an innovation lab for moonshots, and Waymo self-driving and Loon balloons (Kim, Lee and Jeon, 2024). Though some X projects like Project Loon were later wound down, the existence of a structured R&D funnel demonstrates an attempt to balance high-risk research with market-driven products.

Top Dissertation Topics UK

4.2 Innovation Culture

Google’s innovation strategy is as much cultural as structural. The company’s ethos of “20% time”, hackathons, and a long-standing emphasis on experimentation fits Cameron and Quinn’s adhocracy culture: one that values innovation and risk-taking. and is held together by the desire to experiment (Franco, Sartor and Rodrigues, 2024). Google also actively solicits ideas via internal forums and surveys. For example, the recent shift of the Googlegeist survey to weekly check-ins suggests a continuous improvement orientation, using employee feedback to drive change; though partly as a reaction to culture concerns (Isac et al., 2022).

4.3 Innovation Outputs and Portfolio

Under Pichai, who has been the CEO since 2015, Google doubled down on AI as its ‘innovation moat’ (Mauboussin and Callahan, no date; Yumiyanti and Muqsith, 2024). Key outputs include advanced AI models such as Gemini & Bard integrated into products, and differentiated cloud AI services. YouTube’s rapid growth and hardware successes in Pixel 6a/7 series, which has been called “best-selling generation ever”, show innovative expansion (Kellen, 2023). However, not all ventures flourish: many Google acquisitions or projects like social network Google+, Google Glass, etc. have been shut down. This highlights ambidexterity: Google experiments boldly (exploration) but often “kills” low performers (exploitation of successes). The dynamic capabilities framework explains this learning process; reconfiguring resources when projects fail or succeed (Muneeb et al., 2023).

Google’s strategy remains to invest heavily in R&D and maintain an innovation culture, believing “innovation can manifest in a variety of ways… a culture of innovation means everyone… constantly pursues something better” (Google Cloud, 2022). Google attempts to put its own “data and practical ideas” into action via AI tools for productivity and by using its own culture as a model for others (Google Cloud, 2022). This self-referential approach of outsourcing a “culture of innovation report” underscores Google’s confidence in its methods but also the ongoing need to codify innovation processes (Steiber, 2024).

Google’s innovation strategy, therefore, uses theory-like ambidexterity and adhocracy: fostering creative freedom and formal R&D funnels while also using data-driven review to prune projects. The balance of exploration vs. exploitation remains delicate; theory suggests sustained performance needs both, a lesson Google continually applies.

5. Organisational Culture Analysis

5.1 Cultural Profile: Adhocracy-Clan vs Market-Hierarchy

Google’s organisational culture is legendary for being open, creative, and collaborative. Using Competing Values Framework, it historically embodies adhocracy/clan traits. Adhocracy culture encourages risk-taking and innovation (“entrepreneurial, driven to create new things”), while clan culture emphasizes teamwork and employee involvement (Temitope, 2022). Google’s own statements reflect this: the company describes itself as “curious, talented, and passionate” people who “embrace collaboration and creativity” (Google, no date). Founders’ motto of a “healthy disregard for the impossible” captures an adhocracy spirit (Page, 2009). Google also calls its work environment supportive: it “doubled down on building a workplace where everyone feels supported to do their best work”, a ‘nod’ to clan-like caring (Google. 2024).

Get Assignment Help for Top Subjects

5.2 Cultural Strengths and Behaviours

This innovative culture enables high employee engagement. Projects like Project Aristotle (2012-14) found psychological safety to be the key factor in team success; Google promoted open dialogue and supportive team norms in response (McCausland, 2023). Great Place to Work and other surveys typically rank Google’s culture highly owing to factors like autonomy, access to leadership, and open communication (Great Place to Work, 2021). Indeed, Google’s annual surveys or Googlegeist historically reported high satisfaction with mission and creativity (Isac et al., 2022). The diversity report states explicitly that diverse perspectives are “inseparable from innovation”, showing a cultural value on inclusiveness to spur creativity (Google, 2024). Policies like extensive perk packages, campus amenities, and career development programs all reinforce a clan-like culture valuing employee welfare.

5.3 Cultural Challenges: Control and Change

However, as Google scaled, its culture has evolved. The Alphabet annual report cautions that as the company grows, “we may need to implement more complex organizational management structures or adapt our corporate culture” (Alphabet Inc., 2023). This is a direct recognition that growth has introduced hierarchy features like formal processes and cost controls that can clash with the freewheeling startup ethos. For example, Google’s matrix structure comprising functional departments and product divisions is designed to “drive innovation” through cross-functional teams, yet inherently adds layers of coordination (Cuofano, 2024).

Recent years have seen cultural tensions; the 2023 layoffs and return-to-office mandates reflect a more market/hierarchy emphasis (Google. 2024). Metrics and financial discipline gained prominence after a period of pandemic-era. Employees took note: surveys in 2022 showed 66% dissatisfaction with forced office policies, and commentary pointed to a feeling of “hopelessness about… autonomy” (Chen, 2022). This suggests Google’s clan/adhocracy strengths in flexibility and voice were being undermined. In fact, some analysts argue that Google is shifting toward market culture to meet shareholder expectations (quarterly results) and to reassert control (Cárcel Beltrán, and Gulc, 2021).

Scholarly critique supports this view. Chen (2024) finds that Google’s innovative practices also embed “subtle cultural controls” that can erode autonomy. This analysis uses Schein’s levels and Deal and Kennedy’s “Work hard, play hard” style: on the surface, Google celebrates freedom, but managerial practices and performance pressures can constrain employees (Assoratgoon and Kantabutra, 2023; Akpa, Asikhia and Nneji, 2021). The cultural scientist Azeez (2017) notes that strong cultures may inadvertently hide conformity demands; Google’s recent moves may be an instance of that risk.

As for a Competing Values Framework assessment, Google remains strongest in adhocracy factors such as innovation and risk tolerance, and clan dimensions such as teamwork and autonomy. However, elements of market culture are rising: evident from their focus on targets and accountability for outcomes via ad revenue quotas and cloud sales goals. And elements of hierarchy appear: more formal project gating, cost reviews and compliance; especially after scandals like Project Maven protest in 2018 led to clearer ethics processes (Hogue, 2021). Orero-Blat et al. (2025) show that highly innovative firms have strong adhocracy and digital cultures, while market-oriented cultures have weaker innovation linkages. Google’s situation fits that: it thrives on its adhocracy/digital assets, but must manage the tension that too much hierarchy/market focus could stifle innovation, as the Competing Values Framework theory predicts.

5.4 Evidence from 2021-2025 Events

Specific events illustrate Google’s cultural dynamics. Sundar Pichai’s communication about the 2023 layoffs framed them in empathetic terms (“we’re saying goodbye to talented people… I’m deeply sorry”), signalling an attempt to maintain clan values like caring and responsibility even while imposing market/hierarchy decisions (D’Cruz, 2023; Sakikawa, 2022). Simultaneously, he reiterated the “healthy disregard” ethos, trying to keep innovation identity alive (Edmondson, 2018). The 2024 Googlegeist revamp via weekly pulse surveys shows a move toward transparency and responsiveness, possibly to rebuild trust after disruptions (Brown, 2022). Meanwhile, internal activism in the form of unionization, and protests over ethical issues indicates some employees feel Google’s values or control had drifted (Maiorescu, 2024; Brown and Peterson, 2022; Hicks, 2025).

Overall, Google’s culture is under pressure: its foundational creativity ethos endures, but recent changes have inserted more control. The Competing Values Framework perspective suggests Google is attempting to become more ambidextrous, blending innovation with formal governance. The key question is whether it can preserve enough of its original culture to remain a leader in innovation while scaling responsibly.

6. Human Resource Practices

Google’s HR (People Operations) practices are widely studied. This paper evaluates how these support strategy and culture, especially regarding creativity vs. control.

6.1 People Analytics and Management Development

Google pioneered “people analytics” that uses data on employees to inform HR decisions (Ho-Peltonen, 2024). Project Oxygen (2009-2010) famously identified effective managerial behaviours (Garvin, 2013). According to Google re:Work, an internal experiment “to see how successful the organization could be without managers… failed. Managers matter” (Google re:Work, no date). Project Oxygen pinpointed skills like coaching, communication, & vision-setting, and led to training programs for managers (Impraise, 2016). Google reports improved management quality as a result. This is an example of applying evidence-driven HR to strengthen control and attain better leadership without sacrificing support, since employees valued having good managers.

Later, Project Aristotle (2012-2015) studied high-performing teams (Taylor, Collins and Ashford, 2022). It found psychological safety was crucial: team members must feel safe to take risks and be vulnerable (Lechner and Mortlock, 2022). Google then incorporated safety and inclusiveness into team norms in the form of team building and open feedback (Negara et al., 2024). This aligns with its clan/adhocracy culture: it explicitly nurtured trust and autonomy within teams (Temitope, 2022).

6.2 Talent Acquisition and Retention

Google’s recruitment process is rigorous, and involves thousands of interviews and data-driven filtering. This ensures top talent (resource fit). Compensation is also above-market. Yet HR challenges have emerged. In 2022, employee surveys via Googlegeist indicated declining satisfaction with pay and equity. Some cite increased dissatisfaction, with only about 53% found pay “fair and equitable” in 2022, which was a decline from the previous 63% (Chan, Coulter and Langley, 2022). Google defended its compensation but surveys on Blind, an anonymized forum, found a majority still fair value, suggesting a disconnect between perception and policy.

Workplace flexibility became a hot topic. Many Googlers expected continuing remote/hybrid work after COVID. However, Google implemented a structured hybrid model. As HR Dive reports, 66% of surveyed Google employees were unhappy with a new three-days-in-office policy (Golden, 2022). The feeling of lacking autonomy (see Section 5) ties directly to HR policy. Google responded by making its annual survey continuous via weekly check-ins, perhaps to give employees more voice. In October 2023, Google announced all staff could work from anywhere within their country 4 weeks per year, a sign of responding to retention risks (Fauziyah et al., 2024).

Diversity, Equity & Inclusion (DEI) is a major HR initiative. Google’s 2024 DEI report emphasizes that diverse perspectives drive innovation (Google, 2024). Efforts include bias training, inclusive hiring, and partnerships to broaden tech education. However, Google’s workforce remains critiqued for underrepresentation of women/minorities in tech roles (Maiorescu, 2024). Based upon thorough people analytics, HR must balance meritocracy with equity or vice versa. Recent controversies like allegations of pay discrimination prompted Google to review its compensation system, signalling more HR control to ensure fairness.

6.3 Performance Management and Rewards

Google’s performance evaluation (formerly “stack ranking”) was abandoned in 2013 in Favor of peer-based peer bonuses, reflecting a cultural shift to collaboration (Awati and Wigmore, 2023). Instead, Google uses a combination of manager ratings and calibration committees. While designed for fairness, this process is opaque to many employees, and accusations of bias occasionally surface, as one HR Dive note on compensation suggests.

Google also offers extensive benefits (healthcare, parental leave, sabbaticals) to retain talent, aligning with clan values (care). However, the 2023 layoffs tested these commitments. Google pledged above-industry severance and support, with up to 6 months healthcare and job placement assistance for laid-off staff (Scribner, 2023). Such measures show ethical HR practices even during cost-cutting. The balance of control in the form of headcount cuts with cultural care in the form of support for affected employees illustrates the “dual ethos” at play.

Overall, Google’s HR is highly developed and evidence-based, fostering strengths in innovation and employee satisfaction. Recent years have demanded new HR policies such as hybrid work, surveys, and layoffs support to sustain performance. However, as Chen (2024) warns, even sophisticated HR can impose control: monitoring and metrics like “subtle cultural controls” might undermine the very autonomy that Google values. Google’s challenge is to use HR analytics to empower, not micromanage, its workforce.

7. Interplay of Creativity and Control

The tension between creative freedom and formal control is a central theme. Creativity fuels Google’s innovation, but some degree of control and structure is needed for scalability and accountability. This paper evaluates how Google balances these forces.

7.1 Innovation vs. Efficiency

Google’s Competing Values Framework profile suggests strong flexibility (adhocracy) but mid-level stability. The Annual Report itself warns that as Google “grows and evolves, we may need to implement more complex… structures” (Google. 2024). This implies potential costs: increased structure can dampen creativity. However, Google tries to mitigate this by layering controls onto an open culture. For instance, 20%-time is flexible, but projects that gain traction must go through a stage-gate process to allocate resources (Moreira and Vidor, 2024); combining creativity with discipline.

7.2 Cultural Controls

The analysis by Chen (2024) warns that even voluntary exercises can become subtle constraints; for instance, employees might feel peer pressure to conform to norms or meet productivity metrics. This reflects classic McGregor’s Theory Y vs X debate (Galani and Galanakis, 2022); Google operates more on Theory Y’s trust and autonomy, but recourse to metrics/tracking such as OKRs and key results introduces elements of theory X (control). If not managed carefully, it can harm motivation: as one employee put it, there is “hopelessness about not being able to have that kind of autonomy” (Chen, 2022).

7.3 Leadership and Control

Sundar Pichai’s leadership style is often described as consensus-building and reserved, in contrast to Google’s bold founders. This leadership personality may impose subtle shifts toward caution. When communicating about layoffs, Pichai emphasized empathy but also insisted on alignment with “highest priorities” (D’Cruz, 2023). His message combined a clan tone (“grateful for you”) with a market tone (“tough choices”, “cost base sharpened”) (D’Cruz, 2023). Such rhetoric reveals the dual demands on leaders: maintain morale while driving strategic discipline.

7.4 Managing Ambidexterity

Google’s approach to ambidexterity provides a case study. It structurally separates some explorative units like X lab and Area 120 incubator from exploitative ones like core Ads, which is aligned with ambidextrous organization theory (O’Reilly & Tushman 2013). Key resources such as experienced engineers and capital are flexibly allocated between them. But conflicts occur: some leaders have complained of internal competition for resources. Theory suggests that high-performing ambidextrous firms establish strong contextual leadership and culture to let exploration and exploitation flourish side by side (Enang and Rudd, 2023). Google has long had a culture of ‘everything or nothing’, which allowed high tolerance for failure; recent budget scrutiny might reduce that tolerance.

This, of course, comes with its own strategic implications. Leaning too far toward control could bottleneck innovation; especially risky for a tech leader. Conversely, too lax an approach can lead to waste and loss of investor confidence. Google’s experience suggests a hybrid model: maintain innovation slack such as R&D budgets and creative venues, but ensure rigorous portfolio review like the 2023 cost-cutting (Bin Akhtar, 2024; Gupta, 2024). This aligns with dynamic capabilities theory: build reconfiguration routines that allow experimentation yet quickly redirect efforts from failures to successes.

8. Analysis – Strategic Implications, Risks and Recommendations

8.1 Strategic Implications

Google’s dual emphasis on AI and broad services has strategic implications. By embedding AI (Gemini) across products and cloud platforms, Google aims to strengthen its competitive moat. The Resource-Based View/VRIO perspective suggests its unique AI models and data give it an edge. The cultural strength (innovation) combined with such resources implies continued long-term advantage if managed well. However, integration of AI also raises stakes: Google must navigate ethical issues such as bias & privacy, and regulation; which can impact culture (e.g. employees protested certain AI uses, as described earlier).

In terms of HR, the implications are that Google’s reputation as a cutting-edge, employee-friendly firm helps attract talent; which is consistent with Resource-Based View’s “human assets” as resources. Its people analytics approach and “learning culture” have set industry benchmarks. But as competitor smaller startups also prioritize culture and agility, Google must keep evolving its people practices to remain an employer of choice.

8.2 Risks

• Cultural Misalignment: If Google becomes too bureaucratic, it risks losing its “innovator” identity. Talented employees may leave if they feel creativity is stifled. The 2022 survey data showed “autonomy” as a top demand; ignoring this may erode morale. Risk management theory suggests that talent loss is a non-substitutable risk to Google’s core strengths.
• Innovation Pipeline: Over-reliance on big bets such as AI, Waymo, etc. may neglect incremental innovation in core services. Porter’s theory warns of complacency when a firm dominates, so Google must guard against strategic drift. Resource reallocation in the form of layoffs reduces cushion for new ideas.
• Regulatory/Market Shocks: Aggressive pursuit of AI/Cloud brings Google into competition, and possibly conflict, with powerful incumbents like AWS & Microsoft, and regulators. A cultural emphasis on speed may clash with the need for compliance and governance. External risk is high if missteps occur in data use or monopoly practices.
• Public Perception: As a visible tech leader, Google’s culture is scrutinized. The report notes media coverage of Google’s cultural issues like pay disputes, harassment scandals, and union efforts. Negative perception can affect customer and employee trust.

8.3 Recommendations

1. Balance Flexibility and Structure: Continue to enable innovation by preserving 20%-time, hackathons, and X-labs. But formalize decision gates to ensure resource discipline. For example, maintain “idea sprints” but require clear KPIs for scaling. This aligns with ambidexterity principles.
2. Empower Autonomy: Follow through on hybrid work promises to maintain the psychological contract with employees. The risk of turnover is high if rigid mandates persist. Use the weekly Googlegeist data proactively: communicate how feedback will be acted upon to rebuild trust.
3. Cultivate Inclusive Culture: Invest in diversity and equity as per DEI goals to harness multiple perspectives in innovation. Ensure pipelines for underrepresented groups to enhance market understanding and creativity.
4. Invest in Managerial Excellence: Continue Project Oxygen learnings: train and reward managers who coach and inspire; part of Theory Y leadership. Avoid a purely top-down style. Leadership development should emphasise the balance of vision and support.
5. Scale People Analytics Ethically: Leverage data to improve HR (as Google has done) but be transparent. Avoid “Big Brother” perceptions by involving employees in metrics design. Use anonymized feedback and protect privacy to prevent erosion of trust.
6. Mitigate Risks: Establish strong ethics frameworks for AI and data. This aligns with stakeholder theory: treating employees and society as stakeholders ensures long-term license to operate. Strategically, diversify revenue (Cloud, hardware, services) to reduce dependence on any single business.
7. Leadership and Culture Communication: Clearly articulate how Google’s core values (“do the right thing”) guide current strategies. Reiterate commitment to innovation culture even as efficiencies tighten. For instance, Pichai’s 2023 message explicitly connected cost-cutting to enabling future breakthroughs. Continue such transparent messaging in town halls.
8. Monitor and Adapt: Use dynamic capabilities to continuously monitor environment. Set up a rapid feedback loop (beyond surveys) from teams on emerging challenges. Practice scenario planning for AI/tech shifts. Ensure culture programs adapt (e.g. update “ergo-check” and wellbeing as work evolves).

Implementing these, Google can reinforce its Resource-Based View strengths (talent, AI), cultivate its adhocracy culture while adopting sufficient controls. The aim is to have an organization that can use both creativity and strategy at the same time.

9. Conclusion

Between 2021 and 2025, Google showed how difficult it is to balance new ideas and control in a major tech company. According to ‘Resource-Based View’ and ‘Dynamic Capabilities’, Google uses its unique resources such as data, AI, and skilled employees to keep leading in digital innovation, mainly by focusing on AI. Google’s culture is mainly adhocracy/clan, which is flexible and team-oriented, but it is now adding more market/hierarchy aspects such as structure and efficiency as it grows. The use of data in management and a focus on psychological safety have helped Google develop its creative culture, but employees’ requests for more independence show that these areas should be managed with care. To maintain the company’s culture, the strategy should focus on keeping teams creative and also setting clear standards for performance.

Google’s story proves that even the most innovative companies need to adapt their culture and controls to keep up with their goals. Pichai pointed out that tough times like economic changes and new technology require us to concentrate on our main goals, but he also reminded everyone that Google is always optimistic and eager to explore new ideas. Google needs to make sure this ethos is part of its long-term strategy. The company’s future achievements will rely on how effectively it applies what it learned in 2021-2025 to its practices, keeps its culture and learning approach flexible, and uses its resources and abilities. Google and similar organisations should use this approach, which is based on theory and proven by actions, to blend creativity with control for their own benefit.

References

Akpa, V.O., Asikhia, O.U. and Nneji, N.E. (2021) ‘Organizational culture and organizational performance: A review of literature’, International Journal of Advances in Engineering and Management, 3(1), pp. 361–372. Available at: https://www.publications.calebuniversity.edu.ng/caleb_uploads/2024/04/Organizational-Culture-and-Organizational-Performance-A-Review-of-Literature.pdf (Accessed: 6 June 2025).

Alphabet Inc. (no date) FAQs and general information. Available at: https://abc.xyz/investor/faqs-and-general-information/ (Accessed: 6 June 2025).

Awati, R. and Wigmore, I., 2023. Stacked ranking (stack ranking). TechTarget. Available at: https://www.techtarget.com/whatis/definition/stacked-ranking [Accessed 7 June 2025].

Azeez, S.A. (2017) ‘Human Resource Management Practices and Employee Retention: A Review’, Journal of Economics, Management and Trade, 18(2), pp. 1–10. Available at: https://doi.org/10.9734/JEMT/2017/32997 (Accessed: 6 June 2025).

Barney, J.B. (1991) ‘Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage’, Journal of Management, 17(1), pp. 99–120. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700108 (Accessed: 6 June 2025).

Begum, Z. and Siddiqui, D.A. (2021) ‘Types of deceptions and their impact on wellbeing and in-role performance: the mediating role of emotional exhaustion, complemented by organizational culture’. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3943059 (Accessed: 6 June 2025).

Bertaglia, T., Goanta, C. and Iamnitchi, A. (2024, September) ‘The monetisation of toxicity: analysing YouTube content creators and controversy-driven engagement’, in Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Open Challenges in Online Social Networks, pp. 1–9. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1145/3677117.3685005 (Accessed: 6 June 2025).

Blom, A.B.C. and Curseu, P.L. (2025) ‘A multilevel investigation of the relationship between the strength of ethical organizational culture and psychological safety: do simple organizational interventions work?’, Journal of Organizational Change Management, 38(2), pp. 378–392. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-06-2024-0345 (Accessed: 6 June 2025).

Brown, G. and Peterson, R.S. (2022) ‘The imbalanced board: Google’, in Disaster in the boardroom. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. [insert page numbers if available]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-91658-9_6 (Accessed: 6 June 2025).

Brown, M.I. (2022) ‘Investigating the promise and pitfalls of pulse surveys’, Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 15(1), pp. 137–149. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2021.124 (Accessed: 6 June 2025).

Çalışkan Olgun, B. (2024) Enhancing privacy or impeding competition? Privacy as an objective justification in the light of Apple and Google cases. Master’s thesis. Tilburg Law School. Available at: https://arno.uvt.nl/show.cgi?fid=178099 (Accessed: 6 June 2025).

Cameron, K.S. & Quinn, R.E. (2011), Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture (3rd ed.), Jossey-Bass. Available at: https://worldofwork.io/2019/10/cameron-quinns-competing-values-culture-model/#:~:text=3%20%E2%80%93%20Adhocracy. (Accessed: 6 June 2025).

Cárcel Beltrán, H. and Gulc, A. (2021) ‘Business culture of corporate giant – a case study of Google company’, Akademia Zarządzania, 5(1), pp. 167–174. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353642197_Business_culture_of_corporate_giant_-a_case_study_of_Google_company (Accessed: 6 June 2025).

Chan, R., Coulter, M. and Langley, H. (2022) ‘Leaked Google internal survey shows employees are increasingly dissatisfied with their compensation’, Business Insider, 9 March. Available at: https://www.businessinsider.com/google-internal-survey-compensation-googlegeist-2022-3 (Accessed: 7 June 2025).

Chen, Q. (2024) ‘Critical analysis of motivation and organizational culture at Google: balancing innovation with employee autonomy’, International Journal of Education and Humanities, 17(3), pp. 283–286. Available at: https://doi.org/10.54097/hc1yt733 (Accessed: 6 June 2025).

Chen, R. (2022) ‘Google employees dissatisfied with return-to-office plan, some consider other jobs’, Blind Blog, 16 March. Available at: https://www.teamblind.com/blog/google-april-4-office-return-rto-plan-reaction/ (Accessed: 6 June 2025).

Cuofano, G. (2024) ‘Google organizational structure in a nutshell’, FourWeekMBA. Available at: https://fourweekmba.com/google-organizational-structure/ (Accessed: 6 June 2025).

D’Cruz, D. (2023) ‘Googlers, I have a difficult news to share: read Sundar Pichai’s letter firing 12,000 Google employees’, Business Today, 20 January. Available at: https://www.businesstoday.in/technology/news/story/googlers-i-have-a-difficult-news-to-share-read-sundar-pichais-letter-firing-on-12000-google-employees-366890-2023-01-20 (Accessed: 6 June 2025).

de Almeida Guerra, R.M. and Camargo, M.E. (2021) ‘Understanding the logic of organizational ambidexterity’, Revista Pensamento Contemporâneo em Administração, 15(1), pp. 90–106. Available at: https://doi.org/10.12712/rpca.v15i1.49694 (Accessed: 6 June 2025).

Desai, D., Kantliwala, S.V., Vybhavi, J., Ravi, R., Patel, H., Patel, J. and Ravi, R. (2024) ‘Review of AlphaFold 3: transformative advances in drug design and therapeutics’, Cureus, 16(7). Available at: https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.63646 (Accessed: 6 June 2025).

Dimitrakaki, I. (2022) ‘Organizational culture and performance: the case of Google’, Global Research Review in Business and Economics, 8(5), pp. 1–9. Available at: https://doi.org/10.56805/grrbe (Accessed: 6 June 2025).

Edmondson, A.C. (2018) The fearless organization: creating psychological safety in the workplace for learning, innovation, and growth. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Enang, I. and Rudd, J.M. (2024) Organisational Ambidexterity and Strategy: Design, Structure & Implementation. Routledge: Taylor & Francis Group. ISBN: 9781032782201. Available at: https://www.routledge.com/Organisational-Ambidexterity-and-Strategy-Design-Structure-and-Implementation/Enang-Rudd/p/book/9781032782201 (Accessed: 7 June 2025).

Fauziyah, N.N., Priharsari, D., Pinandito, A. and Pradana, F. (2024) ‘Factors Influencing Employee Productivity in Work From Anywhere: A Systematic Literature Review (SLR)’, Journal of Information Technology and Computer Science, 9(1), pp. 86–96. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/379551123_Factors_Influencing_Employee_Productivity_in_Work_From_Anywhere_A_Systematic_Literature_Review_SLR (Accessed: 7 June 2025).

Franco, M., Sartor, R. and Rodrigues, M. (2024) ‘Cameron and Quinn’s organisational culture traits in the context of university–SME cooperation: a qualitative study’, International Small Business Journal, 39(3). Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/09504222241289817 (Accessed: 6 June 2025).

Galani, A. and Galanakis, M. (2022) ‘Organizational Psychology on the Rise—McGregor’s X and Y Theory: A Systematic Literature Review’, Psychology, 13(5), pp. 782–789. Available at: https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2022.135051 (Accessed: 6 June 2025).

Garvin, D.A. (2013) ‘How Google sold its engineers on management’, Harvard Business Review, December. Available at: https://hbr.org/2013/12/how-google-sold-its-engineers-on-management (Accessed: 6 June 2025).

Golden, R. (2022) ‘Report: Google employees increasingly dissatisfied with pay, return-to-office plans’, HR Dive, 23 March. Available at: https://www.hrdive.com/news/report-google-employees-increasingly-dissatisfied-with-pay-return-to-offi/620899/ (Accessed: 7 June 2025).

Google (2024) Diversity Annual Report 2024. Available at: https://belonging.google/diversity-annual-report/2024/ (Accessed: 6 June 2025).

Google (no date) Careers at Google. Available at: https://careers.google.com/ (Accessed: 6 June 2025).

Google Cloud (2022) ‘Everyone wants a culture of innovation. So what does it look like?’, Google Cloud Executive Insights. Available at: https://cloud.google.com/executive-insights/everyone-wants-a-culture-of-innovation-report-what-does-it-look-like-report (Accessed: 6 June 2025).

Google re:Work (no date) Managers. Available at: https://rework.withgoogle.com/en/subjects/managers (Accessed: 6 June 2025).

Great Place to Work (2021) ‘A killer culture keeps Google vital’, Great Place to Work Blog. Available at: https://www.greatplacetowork.com/resources/blog/a-killer-culture-keeps-google-vital (Accessed: 6 June 2025).

Gupta, D. (2024) Strategic human resource management: analyzing Google’s HR policies, performance management as a benchmark for industry impact and adaptations. Available at: https://www.theseus.fi/handle/10024/863015 (Accessed: 6 June 2025).

Hicks, M. (2025) ‘History in the making: whistleblowers and big tech’, First Monday, 30(1). Available at: https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v30i1.14117 (Accessed: 6 June 2025).

Hogue, S. (2021) ‘Project Maven, Big Data, and Ubiquitous Knowledge: The Impossible Promises and Hidden Politics of Algorithmic Security Vision’, in Završnik, A. and Badalič, V. (eds.) Automating Crime Prevention, Surveillance, and Military Operations. Cham: Springer, pp. 203–221. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-73276-9_10 (Accessed: 6 June 2025).

Ho-Peltonen, M. (2024) Predictive people analytics and its application in employee attrition prediction. Master’s thesis. Chuo University. Available at: https://www.doria.fi/handle/10024/188982 (Accessed: 6 June 2025).

Impraise (2016) ‘Project Oxygen: 8 ways Google resuscitated management’, Medium, 30 June. Available at: https://medium.com/workplace-stories/project-oxygen-8-ways-google-resuscitated-management-679d24844c28 (Accessed: 6 June 2025).

Isac, N., Dobrin, C., Raphalalani, L.P. and Sonko, M. (2022) ‘Does organizational culture influence job satisfaction? A comparative analysis of two multinational companies’, Review of International Comparative Management, 23(3), pp. 315–324. Available at: https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=1047326 (Accessed: 6 June 2025).

Kanwar, S. (2024) AI markets and competition in India. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/388554003_AI_Markets_and_Competition_in_India (Accessed: 6 June 2025).

Kellen (2023) ‘Google’s 2022 Pixel phones were “best selling” ever’, Droid Life, 2 February. Available at: https://www.droid-life.com/2023/02/02/googles-2022-pixel-phones-were-best-selling-ever (Accessed: 6 June 2025).

Kim, S., Lee, C. and Jeon, J. (2024) Technological pathways and market structure: autonomous vehicle innovation in the United States and South Korea. KDI School of Public Policy & Management Paper No. DS24-05. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5073169 (Accessed: 6 June 2025).

Kusumaningtyas, R.P. (2024) ‘Understanding the effectiveness of Google’s organizational design in pursuing sustainable innovation’, Synergy in Economic & Business Management, 1(1), pp. 30–37. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2222/9ge60133 (Accessed: 6 June 2025).

Lechner, A. and Mortlock, J.M.T. (2022) ‘How to create psychological safety in virtual teams’, Organizational Dynamics, 51(2), 100849. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2021.100849 (Accessed: 6 June 2025).

Lee, H. and Jung, J. (2024) ‘Customer–resource relationships in the continuous business model innovation of technology companies: Google cases’, Sustainability, 16(1), p. 257. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3390/su16010257 (Accessed: 6 June 2025).

Liu, B. (2022) Artificial intelligence and machine learning capabilities and application programming interfaces at Amazon, Google, and Microsoft (Doctoral dissertation). Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Available at: https://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/146689 (Accessed: 6 June 2025).

Liu, J. (2023) AI exposure without labor data: measuring AI’s impact through firms. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4668083 (Accessed: 6 June 2025).

Maiorescu, R.D. (2024) ‘An analysis of online perceptions in response to Microsoft’s and Google’s sexual harassment scandals’, Journal of Public Relations Research. Advance online publication. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/23294906241229178 (Accessed: 6 June 2025).

Mauboussin, M.J. and Callahan, D. (no date) Measuring the moat: assessing the magnitude and sustainability of value creation. Morgan Stanley Investment Management. Available at: https://www.morganstanley.com/im/publication/insights/articles/article_measuringthemoat.pdf (Accessed: 6 June 2025).

McCausland, T. (2023) ‘Creating psychological safety in the workplace’, Research-Technology Management, 66(2), pp. 56–58. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/08956308.2023.2164439 (Accessed: 6 June 2025).

Moreira, L.F. and Vidor, G. (2024) ‘The Importance of the Product Development Process for Companies: A Bibliometric Analysis of the Stage-gate Model’, Paradigm: A Management Research Journal, 28(1), pp. 7–25. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/09718907241243188 (Accessed: 7 June 2025).

Muneeb, D., Ahmad, S.Z., Abu Bakar, A.R. and Tehseen, S. (2023) ‘Empowering resources recombination through dynamic capabilities of an enterprise’, Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 36(1), pp. 1–21. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/JEIM-01-2021-0004 (Accessed: 6 June 2025).

Negara, A.I.S., Helmi, M.F., Wijaya, A.T. and Madistriyatno, H. (2024) ‘How important psychological safety is in supporting strategic management to achieve success: a narrative literature review’, Open Access International Journal of Social Science, 6(5). Available at: https://doi.org/10.37275/oaijss.v6i5.175 (Accessed: 6 June 2025).

O’Reilly, C.A. and Tushman, M.L. (2013) ‘Organizational Ambidexterity: Past, Present, and Future’, Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), pp. 324–338. Available at: https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2013.0025.

Page, L. (2009) ‘Commencement address at the University of Michigan’, Google Press Center. Available at: https://www.google.com/intl/en/press/annc/20090502-page-commencement.html (Accessed: 6 June 2025).

Pichai, S. (2024) ‘The next chapter of our Gemini era’, Google Blog, 8 February. Available at: https://blog.google/technology/ai/google-gemini-update-sundar-pichai-2024/ (Accessed: 6 June 2025).

Pitre, J. (2022) ‘Platform strategy in a technopolitical war: the failure (and success) of Facebook Watch’, Global Storytelling: Journal of Digital and Moving Images, 2(1), p. 5. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3998/gs.1554 (Accessed: 6 June 2025).

Prodan, A., Occhipinti, J-A., Hynes, W., Donohoo, S., Heffernan, M., Green, R. and Swieboda, P. (2025) Generative AI data centres for renewable energy integration and grid stability: fostering a sustainable economic future. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5111504 (Accessed: 6 June 2025).

Quaranta, A., Hui, W.L. and Bhargava, N. (2025) ‘Applying the VRIO framework to clinical and operative workflows in dental practice management: sustainable competitive advantage in dental business’, Annali di Stomatologia, 16(1), pp. 31–36. Available at: https://doi.org/10.59987/ads/2025.1.31-36 (Accessed: 6 June 2025).

Ramchandani, R., Guo, E., Mostowy, M., Kreutz, J., Sahlollbey, N., Carr, M.M., Chung, J. and Caulley, L. (2025) ‘Comparison of ChatGPT-4, Copilot, Bard and Gemini Ultra on an otolaryngology question bank’, Clinical Otolaryngology. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/coa.14302 (Accessed: 6 June 2025).

Rane, N., Choudhary, S. and Rane, J. (2024) Gemini or ChatGPT? Capability, performance, and selection of cutting-edge generative artificial intelligence (AI) in business management. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4731281 (Accessed: 6 June 2025).

Rikap, C. (2023) Same end by different means: Google, Amazon, Microsoft and Facebook’s strategies to dominate artificial intelligence. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4472222 (Accessed: 6 June 2025).

Sakikawa, T. (2022) ‘The connection between organizational and national cultures’, Journal of Global Management, 1, pp. 129–151. Available at: https://chuo-u.repo.nii.ac.jp/record/16107/files/2436-6110_1_129-151.pdf (Accessed: 6 June 2025).

Scribner, H. (2023) ‘Alphabet plans to lay off 12,000 Google workers’, Axios, 20 January. Available at: https://www.axios.com/2023/01/20/google-layoffs-ceo-sundar-pichai-memo-email (Accessed: 7 June 2025).

Sokol, D.D. and Zhu, F. (2021) ‘Harming competition and consumers under the guise of protecting privacy: an analysis of Apple’s iOS 14 policy updates’, Cornell Law Review Online, 107, pp. 94–111. Available at: https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/clro107&div=6&id=&page= (Accessed: 6 June 2025).

Steiber, A. (2024) ‘Google in 2023’, in The Google model. Cham: Springer. (Management for Professionals). Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-66812-8_4 (Accessed: 6 June 2025).

Steiber, A. (2024) The Google model: managing continuous innovation in a rapidly changing world. Cham: Springer Nature.

Talent Management Institute (2024) ‘Cracking Google’s code: lessons from its cutting-edge talent management’, TMI Blog, 19 April. Available at: https://www.tmi.org/blogs/cracking-googles-code-lessons-from-its-cutting-edge-talent-management (Accessed: 6 June 2025).

Taylor, J., Collins, D. and Ashford, M. (2022) ‘Psychological safety in high-performance sport: contextually applicable?’, Frontiers in Sports and Active Living, 4, 823488. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3389/fspor.2022.823488 (Accessed: 6 June 2025).

Teece, D.J. (2023) ‘The evolution of the dynamic capabilities framework’, in Artificiality and sustainability in entrepreneurship, 113, p. 238. Available at: https://library.oapen.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.12657/59324/978-3-031-11371-0.pdf?sequence=6#page=115 (Accessed: 6 June 2025).

Temitope, A.O. (2022) ‘Agile and organizational culture: fostering agile values and mindset’, International Journal of Science and Research Archive, 7(2), pp. 672–681. Available at: https://doi.org/10.30574/ijsra.2022.7.2.0265 (Accessed: 6 June 2025).

Ucar, M. and Yalcintas, A. (2023) ‘GDPR and digital protectionism in the EU: the cases of Android and iOS’, Inquiry, 66(7), pp. 1079–1094. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/00213624.2023.2273120 (Accessed: 6 June 2025).

Walker, A. (2011) ‘‘Creativity loves constraints’: the paradox of Google’s twenty percent time’, Ephemera: Theory & Politics in Organization, 11(4). Available at: https://www.ephemerajournal.org/sites/default/files/11-4walker.pdf (Accessed: 6 June 2025).

Yumiyanti, I. and Muqsith, M.A. (2024, December) ‘Corporate colonization analysis of Stanley A. Deetz in the dismissal Google employees case’, in Proceedings of the 6th Open Society Conference (OSC 2024), pp. 69–84. Atlantis Press. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2991/978-2-38476-340-5_7 (Accessed: 6 June 2025).

Explore Recent Blogs