Google Plc - Identification of Training Needs, HR Policies and Organisational Approach - Case Study Example

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT Table of Contents Table of Contents 2 Introduction: 3 Question 3 1 Contribution of HR policies towards organisationalapproach: 3 1.2 Challenges faced in collection, storage and sharing of information: 5 1.3 Recommendation for improving the knowledge management process: 7 Question 2 9 2.1 Identification of Training needs with competencies: 9 Question 3 12 3.1 Meeting Career Expectations of Employees: 12 Conclusion: 14 Reference List: 16 Introduction: Human resource policies and practices are evolving continuously with the changes taking place within the business scenario. The roles played by the HR managers focus not only on managing administrative functions but also support the strategic objectives of a firm. As stated by Banfield and Kay (2012), the scope of HRM has enhanced and this has brought in new factors in the managerial functions. Bjorkman and Stahl (2010) stated that, business competition is growing rapidly and most of the firms are trying to develop cost competitive advantage by optimal utilisation of their business resources. The HR managers are responsible for training, motivating, performance management, policy making, etc. This study will intend to evaluate these factors and their influence in the business process in the contemporary scenario. The researcher has considered the organisation Google Plc for conducting the study and fulfilling its requirements. Question 1: 1.1 Contribution of HR policies towards organisational approach: Apart from being an IT giant, Google Plc. is known as one of the best employers around the world. Globally renowned organisations such as Forbes have awarded Google with the title of “Best Place to Work For” (Google 2014). The organisational approach of Google is mainly directed towards creating a relaxed work environment and motivates employees for enhancing their performance. They try to develop loyalty among the employees for ensuring a long-term relationship with the business house (Hope Hailey, Farndale and Truss, 2005). Google being an IT firm and one of the biggest in the industry, has a huge database monitoring system that has been connected and shared with every operational and administrative department of the company (Google 2014). The HR polices of Google also considers the usage of their database management, in order to secure the knowledge management process of the firm. The Human Resource Information Systems plays a major role in the knowledge management process of the HR department. The HRIS of Google, unlike other business houses does not focus on monitoring employee productivity rather it evaluates the manner in which each employee is utilising their work hours (Gueutal and Stone, 2008). The HR process of Google is called People Operations (Google 2014). The People Operations process is completely based on people analytics and is managed with database integration and database decisions management. The HR polices and decision of Google is made on the basis of the facts and the evaluation of the database. Google aims to achieve accuracy in their business decisions which requires proper analysis of the available information. The HRIS of Google also acts as one of the data collection techniques that gathers and stores information regarding the work progress and employee contribution (MacMillan, 2008). The HRIS forms a segment of the overall database of Google and allows the top authority to observe and monitor the workforce status from the main storage. Michie and Sheehan (2008) observed that, Google’s organisational approach is based on innovating for future; they try to achieve perfection in their work process with the help of accurate decision making. The internal culture of the company dominates the HR policy making and information management process (Woldu, 2006). They try to connect with their employees beyond the professional relationship which provides Google more information regarding their workforce. Employees have access to all the necessary information and manage their own progress files or data sheets that are also stored in the HRIS. This is also used while recruitment and training processes (Biles and Holmberg, 2007). Google assess the gaps existing in the workforce and tries to identify the desired talent in the global job market or develop training programs based on that process. The integration of the HRIS with the DBMS has allowed Google to implement their HR rules in the desired manner in the company (Albrecht, 2010). Internal competition among the employees for performance boost up is created in a friendly atmosphere which promotes mutual growth and understanding. The concept of an aligned human resource management process is based on creating a shared vision and working together for achieving it. 1.2 Challenges faced in collection, storage and sharing of information: Data sharing is a critical task mainly because of the security concerns associated with the process. Sharing of data in Google is mainly done by the cloud technology (Kamoche, 2009). Technological advancement has allowed the firm to manage their information in a more secure manner. The cloud technology of Google is developed in different layers based on the type of information being stored, the access of the individuals to each level, the services influenced by the information and the data management across various organisational departments. The security of the database is managed by a separate department that monitors the activities within the cloud and the internal organisational functions (Dyer and Holders, 2009). Figure 1; Database Sharing Framework in Google (Source: Cooksey and Gates, 2008, p – 89) The above diagram reflects the process of data sharing and managing in Google. In order to access the cloud network for data collecting or sharing, every individual has to first pass through the security layers which will confirm their access to the cloud database (Hewlett, 2009). The security process also monitors and records the activities conducted by any person within the cloud and forward them to the designated authority (Dyer and Holders, 2009). This ensures the safety of the data in the cloud storage of Google. The inherent challenges in the process of data sharing are mainly related to the segmentation of knowledge and identifying the need of the data for each department. Although technological assistance helps Google in tracking the activities within the database system, but the allocation of the resources are done by manual selection which can be influenced by biasness (Arthur, 2012). Hewlett (2009) observed that, data management security mainly relies on the personnel handling of the information; the technology can only ensure storage but the authentication of other users need a final permission from the database manager. In order to reduce the complicacies of the data sharing, storing and gathering process Google has segmented their work process in small teams and each team has their own space in the cloud network (Wright and Dyer, 2007). The teams cannot overlap or get access to the networks of other teams which enhance the transparency in monitoring the work progress of the employees. The HRIS system has been developed in a manner so that it can comprehend the security instructions and develop a shared database for the HR and other operational teams of Google. Another threat in the database security process is the increasing number of individuals having access to the database mainframe. Ngai and Wat (2009) stated that as business prospects grow the need for information, sharing also increases. In such scenarios, the internal conflicts among the members of a team may create threat of information leakage or data hacking. In order to encounter any threats related to human errors or internal conflicts, Google has developed their human resource information system as an independent body that directly communicates with the Board of Directors (Banfield and Kay, 2012). 1.3 Recommendation for improving the knowledge management process: From the above conducted analysis of the database management and the knowledge sharing process of Google, it can be observed that the security threats are well covered by the organisational approach and the HRIS. Thus, in order to increase the efficiency of the knowledge management process of Google, the researcher has focused on recommending further expansion of the database for integrating external stakeholders (Jackson, 2007). The knowledge management process of Google enables them to collaborate their internal stakeholders i.e. the workforce from different operational segments and streamline the organisational performance (Kossek et al. 2007). However, the growth of business also demands more information and collaboration among both internal and external stakeholders. One of the HR policies of Google is to treat their employees as their customers and the inclusion of the employees in the company database management will help in developing a basic framework for integrating external stakeholders in the business process (Google 2014). As studied above, the decision making process of Google is based on the peoples’ analytics which focuses on evaluating the facts and figures before coming to a decision. The primary role of peoples’ analytics is to bring in accuracy in the decision making process and provide the customers of Google with their exact needs (Kossek et al. 2007). Inclusion of the external stakeholders such as the shareholders or the investors will allow the company to evaluate the efficacy of their products and services by presenting them directly to the collaborated members. Google mostly develops their decisions on the basis of their analysis however; inclusion of external collaborators will also allow the company to measure the reliability of their decisions from the customers’ perspectives (Ichniowski and Shaw, 2008). However, the company has to develop some parameters that will form the selection process of the external stakeholders to be included in the database management process of Google. The external stakeholders will be authorised to view the activities and make suggestions however, they will not have the direct authority of influencing the ongoing work or disrupting the workflow by any means. The factors that will influence the role of the external stakeholders in the knowledge management process needs to be identified for implementing a larger database management network. Google’s cloud computing system can also help them in integrating the external stakeholders without directly connecting them with the organisational functions (Kamoche, 2009). The cloud structure used in Google reflected the various cylinders showcasing the segments in the knowledge management process. If Google can develop a separate segment for their customers, shareholders and investors within the cloud and channel it to the organisational functions, Google can extract the raw data from their consumers and analyse it to identify the consumer requirements. Question 2 2.1 Identification of Training needs with competencies: Training programs are developed in order to increase the performance and productivity of the employees to meet the organizational objectives. The growth of competition in the business scenario has made the training process of the company more related to the consumer demands rather than focusing on the core competencies of their workforce. This has also reduced the efficiency of the training process of the business. Kamoche (2009) stated that the organisations have to focus on meeting the market demands and develop their strengths accordingly for sustaining in the competition. Albrecht (2010) argued that an organisation has to identify the key strengths of its workforce for assessing the ability of the firm to survive in the market. Biles and Holmberg (2007) observed that, developing employee skills and designing the business plans in accordance to them creates uniformity in the quality of services provided by a firm which has the potential of creating market demand. Assessment of the employee abilities for developing the training modules fills the gaps existing within the employee objectives and the organisational visions (Dyer and Holders, 2009). The stack ranking policy of Microsoft was one policy that helped the firm in measuring and comparing the employee skills and weaknesses but it also created a hostile environment within the work culture and reduced the productivity of the company. Thus, identifying employee capabilities is necessary but can also result in reducing the employee collaboration and integration. In the words of Biles and Holmberg (2007), comparing employees and identifying their weaknesses are different activities and should not be treated alternatively. The internal culture of Google is developed on the theme of constant learning and growth. Google believes that consumer needs are evolving and the business process has to change in order to match up to the expectations of their consumers. Dyer and Holders (2009) stated that the internal structure of the firm must be flexible in order to support the changes in the business structure and also help the workforce to adapt to the new and unknown circumstances. Google’s training process is focused on aligning the core values of the organisation and the employees and develops a shared vision instead of teaching how to work. According to MacMillan (2008), developing an unorthodox human resource management that does not follow the traditional HR principles but fulfils the organisational requirements can be a sustainable process in the long run. On the other hand, Bjorkman and Stahl (2010) criticised that employees should be aware about their organisational responsibilities and the HR managers is responsible for identifying the training requirements and meeting them. Biles and Holmberg (2007) stated that the workforce of a company is as good as its HR department, training, recruitment & selection, monitoring, etc are the functions of HR, while the responsibility or aim is to develop a mutual platform for both employee and employer growth. Most of the companies develop their training needs based on the needs of the consumers which create gaps in the employees’ knowledge base and the organisational expectations (MacMillan, 2008). The essentiality of understanding the competency of the workforce is often neglected for living up to the demands of the market. The training process of Google has been segmented into various levels based on the requirements of the employees and the organisation (Jackson, 2007). The basic training process includes understanding the work structure, work culture, company values, etc that will form the psychological stability in an individual. The next step introduces the employees within the operational processes and assesses their capability (Jackson, 2007). Based on the results of the initial performance level of the employees, the third stage of training is developed in an individual manner that focuses on the weaknesses of each of the employees separately (Dyer and Holders, 2009). The training process of Google is lengthy and cost incurring and the benefits of this extensive training period is not assured as other competitors such as Apple, Facebook, Amazon, etc are attracting their employees. Google’s training process is known for its clear and customised learning practices. However, they need to ensure that the cost incurred in the training process is being recovered before an employee decides to quit on the firm. The first two stages of their training process is mainly based on assessing the capability of the individuals to adapt to the work culture of Google and their potential productivity. The final stage of training is based on the weaknesses observed during the initial period of the employment which may change with the amount of time spent in the company. This is not considered in the individually designed training program. Wright and Dyer (2007) stated that training process transforms with the changes in the work structure, which forms a key aspect of the training program. Jackson (2007) noted that employees are more focused in achieving their targets with the desired quality for securing their position; the training process should help the workforce to adapt to the changes within the business culture. Google’s training process is designed for ensuring growth of both skills and employee loyalty. The concept of creating an independent learning scenario for business growth also influences the training process of Google. The HR managers can observe the growth of the skills and knowledge of the employees and direct the individuals towards the necessary learning process. Question 3 3.1 Meeting Career Expectations of Employees: Wright and Dyer (2007) noted that, as the job industry is getting directly influenced by the changes in the business systems. As firms are looking to identify and recruit the best talent in the field, the employees are trying to create a sustainable rather than profitable picture in the long run. Ichniowski and Shaw (2008) observed that the career expectations are more related to the field of expertise of the candidates. Albrecht (2010) added that candidates prefer to work in situations that provides the opportunity of growth in the future and enhances their skill base. Bjorkman and Stahl (2010) argued that in the contemporary scenario, candidates are not trying to create a special skill department and are focusing on developing multitasking abilities which will enhance their future prospects. The business houses on the other hand, are trying to employ candidates that suit their particular needs and are more of temporary nature. Arthur (2012) criticised that business houses are more focused on identifying candidates who have the potential of being the future successor of their firm. This also boosts the future career prospects of the employees and help in creating a steady platform in the job market. Google offers their employees an excellent opportunity to secure their professional and personal lives. Dyer and Holders (2009) emphasised that the greatest benefit for an employee is the brand he/she is working with. The brand image of a firm in the international market place also reflects the skills and the experience of an employee. Google being among the top 5 brands of the worlds has this intangible benefits for its employees (Banfield and Kay, 2012). On the other hand, employees working in other big brands do not generally agree to shift to Google because of their lower pay structure (Biles and Holmberg, 2007). However, the benefits provided by Google are often considered as a surplus in comparison to monetary incentives. The extra benefits are called Google Perks (Google 2014). For instance the maternity leave of the female employees were extended to 5 months which can be taken as and when needed by the employee (Arthur, 2012). Moreover, the leave period is paid and Google offices also have separate premises for childcare (Arthur, 2012). These factors cover the personal security of an employee and helps in sustaining the relationship between the employees and the employer. Focusing on the aspects of work culture, Google has an open learning and developing approach towards work. The entire workforce of the company has been segmented into little teams of 3 which are interchanged based on the projects. This helps the company in ensuring internal communication and collaboration while the employees get a larger field for learning and developing their skills. The role of team members are also changed so that the potential skills of the employees can be assessed in various functions and be trained accordingly. Banfield and Kay (2012) noted that often employees of Google complain regarding their low pay scale but Google gives their employees free IPOs of the company which is a long term income source (Banfield and Kay, 2012). Arthur (2012) argued that most of the time, Google provides their employees psychological satisfaction such as the ownership of Google via IPOs. However, the physical benefits such as increments and high remunerations are missing in Google’s HR frame. In order to strengthen the employee retention process and develop better opportunities for the employees, it can be recommended that Google considers the industry output for the employees. Although, Google perks have numerous benefits for the employees but it does not reflect in their bank statements immediately which can be a demoralising factor. On the other hand, competitors like Facebook provide their employees a much higher pay package that can be cashed on instantly by the employees (Banfield and Kay, 2012). In the past few years, Google has lost some of its high ranking employees to its competitors because of low remuneration structure and limited monetary benefits. According to Albrecht (2010), the business process of Google is more focused on utilising the human resource for building a strong network of production and innovation within the company. This can also lead to creation of ignorance on the basic needs of the employees as a company tries to develop self-esteem and the sense of belongingness within the employee base. With Google, this can be the case as the falling ratio of employee retention signifies that the employees are not satisfied inspite of the numerous fringe benefits provided by the company. Thus, the recommendation for Google will be to design a pay structure in accordance with the market standard and also create scope for regular increments and monitory incentives for their workforce. This will boost the production and also help them retain their talented workforce. Conclusion: The above study, focused on the aspects of human resource management and its function in business development. The researcher considered Google as the sole company for analysing the subject topic. The organisational approach of Google is the basic framework used for developing the HR policies of the firm. They try to create a shared vision among the employees and the organisation for directing the productivity towards the desired objectives of Google. The knowledge management process of Google is mainly based on their cloud computing process that connects all the departments with the HRIS. The HRIS processes all the necessary information to develop the policies and implement them. The training process of Google is a three staged system that measures the ability of the individuals to fit within the organisational culture and adapt to the changes implemented in work process. However, the training process is lengthy and cost incurring which increases the operational costs of Google and hence, can be modified for enhancing their overall performance. The extra benefits or perks provided by Google to their employees are uncountable however; the basic remuneration and the monitory incentives are missing from the structure. This provides the competitors of Google to attract their employees with high salary package and extra incentive scopes. The recommendations provided in this study are based on the findings and analysis of the human resource management process of the company. Overall, it can be stated that the human resource management process of Google is well developed but Google needs to bring in some modifications based on the changes taking place in the technology industry. Reference List: Albrecht, M., 2010. International HRM: managing diversity in the workplace, 5th ed. London: Academic Press. Arthur, D., 2012. Recruiting, Interviewing, Selecting & Orienting New Employees, 5th ed. London: Routledge Banfield, P. and Kay, R., 2012. Introduction to Human Resource Management, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press Biles, G. E. and Holmberg, S. R., 2007. Strategic Human Resource Planning. 3rd ed. Glenn Ridge, NJ: Thomas Horton and Daughters. Bjorkman, I. and Stahl, G., 2010. Handbook of Research in International Human Resource Management. 6th ed. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Cooksey, R. and Gates, R., 2008. HRM: A Management Science in Need of Discipline. 4th ed. Boston: Pitman Publishing. Dyer, L. D. and Holders, G. W., 2009. Human resource management: Evolving roles and responsibilities. 6th ed. Washington DC: Bureau of National Affairs. Google, 2014. Our Culture. Available from: https://www.google.com/about/company/facts/culture , [Accessed on 5th September 2014] Google 2014a. Ten things we know to be true. Available from: https://www.google.com/about/company/philosophy/ , [Accessed on 5th September 2014] Gueutal, H. G. and Stone, D. L., 2008. The Brave New World of eHR: Human Resources Management in the Digital Age, 3rd ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Hewlett, R., 2009. Integrating human capital concepts in productivity and growth topics, Journal of Management Research, 2: 22-37. Hope Hailey, V., Farndale, E., and Truss, C., 2005. The HR department’s role in organizational performance. Human Resource Management Journal, 15(3), 49-66 Ichniowski, C. and Shaw, K., 2008. The Effects of Human Resource Management Systems on Economic Performance: An International Comparison of US, and Japanese Plants, Management Science, 45(5), 704– 721. Jackson, S. E., 2007. A Quarter-century Review of Human Resource Management in the US: The Growth in Importance on the International Perspective, Management Review, 16, 11– 35. Kamoche, K., 2009. Strategic human resource management within a resource- capability view of the firm, Journal of Management Studies, 2(33), 213-33 Kossek, E. E., Young, W., Gash, D. C. and Nichol, V., 2007. Waiting for innovation in the human resources department: Godot implements a human resources information system. Journal of Human Resource Management, 33, 135-159 MacMillan, I.C., 2008. Gaining Competitive Advantage Through HRM Practices, Human Resource Management, 45, 3, 45 – 56. Michie, J. and Sheehan, M., 2008. Business Strategy, Human Resources, Labor Market Flexibility and Competitive Advantage, International Journal of Human Resource Management 16(3), 445-464. Ngai, E. W. T. and Wat, F. K. T., 2009. Human resource information systems: A review and empirical analysis. Personnel Review, 35(3), 297–314. Woldu, H.G., 2006. A cross-national comparison of cultural value orientations of Indian, Polish, Russian and American employees. International Journal of HRM, 17 (6): 1076-1084. Wright, P.M., and Dyer, L., 2007. New Models of Strategic HRM in a Global Context, International, Journal of Human Resource Management, 16, 875– 881 Read More