Human Resources in Google - Case Study Example

HUMAN RESOURCES (HR) IN GOOGLE PLC By Introduction The human resource management process is the division of an organization that focuses on activities relating to employees. In the modern-day situation, the activities include hiring, recruiting, orientation and training of the current employees, their retention and benefits. According to Brewster, Wood, & Brookes (2008), HR covers each aspect of the training cycle and also contributes towards the strategic planning process of a company. This paper seeks to analyse the role of HR in Google Plc critically by making reference to models of HRM. Further, it evaluates and identifies the impact of the issues that notify Human Resource Planning decisions for the organization as at 2013 by utilizing the strategic analysis to identify external factors. Finally, it crucially evaluates the arguments for and against investment in Human Resource initiatives at the moment. Role of HR in Google As companies grow, training needs and costs increase. Google has a diversified collection of products and service base for their clients. The growth of Google in the international marketplace has reflected its corporate success in every practical aspect of the business management process. According to Kavanagh, Thite, & Johnson (2012. 21), the human resource management process of Google does not follow the planned human resource management process, but have personalized their human resource management process to suit the core values of the company. Clarke (2010) stated that the employee management process of a firm defines its ability to synchronize the resource exploitation process and produce triumphant outcomes. In Google, the human resource management has changed this original name to “the people analytics”. Since it was started, Google has been laying strategies on how to measure learning and HR for more than a decade. Back in 2005, after a number of frustrating years trying to figure out how to measure training, which sets the stage for learning and development (L&D) teams to move beyond the traditional Kirkpatrick measurement model. Today Google continues to try to analyse the impact and efficiency of training for enhanced service delivery. In order to examine the human resource activities of Google, it is necessary to understand the work process and the vision of the firm. The vision of Google has always been to develop ways of sharing information across the globe. Since the beginning of the company in the year 1998, Google has developed products such as the Google search engine, Google Chrome and Gmail amongst others in order to create a platform for information sharing (Sims, 2002, p. 198). Based on this vision, the organisational culture is directed by innovation among its employees to create original ideas that will device a path for their consumers to connect with the world. According to Edwards & Kuruvilla (2005), Google visualises its HR process as a strategic partner that helps them align the organisational objectives with the personal interests of the employees. They consider their employees as the most valuable customers that allow them to identify the customer expectations and perceptions about Google and hence, meet the market challenges (Pike, 2013, p. 1). The HR department is treated as a separate unit by Google Company in an effort to increase efficiency and competitive advantage. The model below seeks to illustrate the procedure employed in HR management. Figure 1: Google’s HR process: Source: Kavanagh, Thite, & Johnson (2012) As the above model evidences it, Google can lay down a competitive strategy by balancing all the aspects of “people analytics”. The employee value proposition is given the priority to promote initiative and participation. This is followed by workforce planning, recruitment, training and feedback. Following the achievement of the expected results, the employees are later rewarded. More so, succession and retention plans are put into consideration and the model terminate with audits forming a vicious cycle. In this regard, this paper with the help of the above model suggests that employee’s efficiency has no direct similarity with making them more innovative or creative. The experiments that Google engages in by encouraging people and organisations to expand their in-house networks are repeatable and their results demonstrable. Factors Influencing the HRM Decisions of Google in 2013 The most cautiously laid human resource plans can be affected by internal and external change any time. In this respect, Google has been keen on forecasting and flexibility as part of the strategy for effective planning and adapting. In order to do this, HR managers have been aware of their internal and external environments. In the light of these challenges, the external factors affecting the human resource decisions of Google could be analysed by using PESTLE as the tool of analysis: Political The political influence of HRM mainly relates to the culture of the organisation. The culture of Google is supportive; the company has separated the HRM functions in order to reduce managerial influence on the HR participations (Brewster, Wood, & Brookes, 2008, p. 341). This also can hamper the work process of other departments, and create internal conflicts within the firm. The perception of the shareholders regarding the employee management process also influences the decision-making the process of the company. Economic Google’s HRM department is one of the largest funded bodies in the organisation. The revenue generated by the HRM department of the company also influences the decision-making process in the HRM (Kees & Tanya, 2009, p. 231). Another essential economic factor in the case of Google is the compensation being provided by the competitor firms to the employees that are, increasing the employee turnover rate of the company. Social The most influential social factor is the change in the demographic nature of the employees. Most of the companies are trying to hire fresh hands for enhanced productivity, and the value of experience is going down. Similarly, Google recruited almost 19000 employees in the year that brought in significant changes in their work culture and also has increased the focus on the employee retention process. Technological The technological changes happening in the industry has reinforced the HRM practices all over the world. With the help of virtual integration of the departments of a firm, HRM can now monitor and evaluate the performance and productivity of all the functional aspects simultaneously (Brewster, Wood, & Brookes, 2008, p. 342). Google has involved technological growth by creating a shared cloud database for managing the organisational information. This database is shared with the HR department, in order to develop better HRIS for corporate growth and development. Legal The legal requirements in the HR working process mainly depend on the trade unions, regulatory bodies and the organisational HR policies of a company (Edwards & Kuruvilla, 2005, p. 17). Google has developed their work process within the code of practices given in regulatory laws such as employee health and safety act, discrimination law. These practices ensure that the employees and the organisation have a mutual platform for highlighting the needs and problems faced in the work process. Environmental The environmental factor includes the culture embedded into the workforce of the firm in regards to their responsibilities to the society. The managerial decision-making process of Google allows the employees to communicate with each other and respect their colleagues (Kees & Tanya, 2009, p. 104). Moreover, they also ensure that the employees are contributing towards shaping a better society for nurturing the future. In this context, Google considers PESTLE type analysis vital in comparison with the most direct influences of the macro environment. This analysis is used when conducting an environment scrutiny; to evaluate competitors, markets and the circumstances in which an organisation finds itself (Clarke, 2010, p. 159). Arguments for and Against Investments in Human Resource Initiatives: According to Kavanagh, Thite, & Johnson (2012), it is wise for an organization to select, put into practice, and use metrics to improve decision-making, optimize organizational efficiency, and maximize the value of HR investments. In this connection, Google has mastered vital foundational principles such as economies of scale, risk and return. These principles have in return been used to evaluate investments objectively in everything from life programmes to training. Boudreau and Cascio also initiated powerful ways to integrate HR with venture strategy and budgeting and for gaining commitment from Google leaders outside the HR function (Kavanagh, Thite, & Johnson, 2012, p. 530). On the other hand, Google has tried to show organisational value for money by focusing on time spent on human resources, activities and training management. This has been possible through the use of HR metrics which enables Google to quantify the impact and cost of employees’ programmes. These critical variables have enabled Google to track changes and trends within the organisation every year. As a result, Google can evaluate its performance in terms of failures and success of HR initiative (Sims, 2002, p. 78). According to (Brewster, Wood, & Brookes, 2008, p. 11) the business process of Google highly relies on their ability to design extraordinary HR concepts for attracting and retaining their employees. However, the long-term benefits provided by the company are not helping them in enhancing the internal management efficacy. For instance, the IPO offerings of the company offer a larger benefit to the employees in comparison to monetary incentives or higher remuneration, but the employees are moving in the opposite direction. Kavanagh, Thite, & Johnson (2012) reflected that, lack of loyalty from the employees also suggests conflicts in the internal management policies of the company. Apart from this, the investment in the HR functions of Google should be redirected towards the recruitment and selection process in order to assess the potential needs and expectations of an employee and also develop a greater chance of employee retention. Most of the time the growth of the employee base of a firm also leads to a chaotic situation within the organisation, and hence participative decision making can also result in late actions on the part of the employers. Edwards & Kuruvilla (2005) stated that, authoritative decision-making reduces the scope of employee participation, but it also enhances efficiency in gaining employee acceptance and accelerates the decision-making process of a company. This is another sector where Google can improvise by developing a restricted database for the decision-making process of the firm. Overall, it can be observed that, although HR investments do not generate direct revenue for the company, but it curves the way for a sustainable revenue generation with mutual contribution from employee and employer. To conclude, HR involves lying down of overall business strategy. This implies that an organisation must enlist leaders outside HR to improve on development. More so, this increases manager acceptance through training programmes and proper training action plans. Furthermore, human capital is very crucial to the organisation given that people are the most valuable resource that impacts directly on an organisation performance. Therefore, with effective management, Google can achieve the maximum output from the workforce of its employees. This in turn builds the organisation’s competitive advantage. The study featured in this paper reflected the growth in the HRM responsibilities and roles in the business sector over the years. Google as a brand has a repute for their participative work culture and structure; the autonomy of work provided to their worker base enhances the job satisfaction among the employees. They have a low compensatory structure, but Google manages that with the help of extraordinary facilities being provided to the employees. However, Google is also facing problems with their employee retention process despite having all the features of their HR process. Observing the conditions of the corporate industry, it can be noticed that, HRM has evolved and in order to match the advanced organisational requirements, a company has to align the HRM planning process with their culture and strategic operations References Brewster, C., Wood, G., & Brookes, M. 2008. Similarity, isomorphism or duality: recent survey evidence on the HRM policies of multinational corporations. British Journal of Management, 19(4), pp. 320-342. Clarke, G. 2010. International Marketing Environment Analysis. The Marketing Review, 5(2), p. 159. Edwards, T., & Kuruvilla, S. 2005. International HRM: national business systems, organizational politics and the international division of labour in MNCs. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16(1), pp. 1-21. Kavanagh, M. J., Thite, M., & Johnson, R. D. 2012. Human resource information systems. London: SAGE. Kees, L. J., & Tanya, B. 2009. Framing the implementation of HRM innovation: HR professionals vs line managers. Personnel Review, 38(5), pp. 1031. Pike, G. H. 2013. The Challenge of Being Google. Information Today, 30(6), p. 1. Sims, R. R. 2002. Organizational success through effective human resources management. California: Quorum Books. Read More