Human Resource Management and Development in Google Inc - Case Study Example

Human Resource Management and Development in Google Inc Student’s Name Subject Professor University/Institution Location Date Effective management of human resources has become crucial to businesses within the fast-paced and modern business environment (Dunphy et al. 2003). A strategic focus on employees’ management is vital, bearing in mind that innovations are brought by people. Innovations are thus only maximized if innovators are recruited and maintained in the organization (Freeman 2010). Furthermore, they must be provided with right managers, as well as an environment that will support innovation. Human resources specialists are therefore more significant in today’s business strategies due to dynamic and changing markets (Dunphy et al. 2003). According to Dunphy et al., 2003 techniques and methods employed in HRM and HRD assist an organization in distinguishing itself from its general competitors. One of the companies that have realized success through a well defined HRM and HRD is Google Inc. The amazing marketplace achievement of Google has made many businesses take notice and realize the importance of established techniques in HRM and HRD for corporate greatness (Mullaney 2004). This essay explores linkages between HRD and HRM in Google Inc. The paper also outlines how these two entities have been amazingly utilized in the company, through great people management and development. Human resource management is the management of an organizations` human resource. It touches all aspects of HR, and takes care of employee’s basic requirements such as staffing, recruiting and maintaining relations of employees (Bowin & Harvey 2001). HRM is also considered the organisational function dealing with issues that relate to employees such as hiring, organisational development, compensation, performance management, safety, communication, benefits, administrations, employee motivation and training. What’s more, HRM focuses on management of, recruitment of, and providing direction for individuals who work in the company. HRM can as well be executed by line managers (Freeman 2010). Human Resource Development on the hand on the other hand is more specific. It focuses on development of the company`s human resources through training, organisational, and career development. HRD also focus on building and improving capabilities in various ways such as mentoring or training (Werner& DeSimone 2011). According to Torraco, 2005 HRD deals with development of HR skills, capabilities and knowledge through learning, counseling and motivational activities and training, and so on. HRD is a framework set for helping HR develop their organisational and personal skills, abilities and knowledge. Opportunities such as career development, training, key employee identification, succession planning, performance management, and development are attained through HRD. The focus of all facets of HRD revolves around developing the best workforce so that individual and organisational employees can accomplish their objectives in service to customers. HRD can be formal just like in classroom training, planned organizational change effort or even a college course. It can also be informal such as coaching by a manager (Torraco 2005). Dunphy et al., 2003 asserts that HRM and HRD are essentially related in the view that, both deal with the human resources in any company. Thus, they are collectively termed as personnel management. The goals of HRD are valuable for enhancing organization productivity, whereas HRM are more vague and general. These two units are well tangled and engaged in Google Company (Mulley, 2004). Google’s mission statement “To organize the world” revolves around making information accessible and useful universally (Google.com). The company’s employee empowerment philosophy and work culture has been apparent right from the time it was launched in 1998. Founders, Sergey Brin and Larry Page in establishing Google aimed at providing the best service through the best people. Google HR department tries to attract and develop the best minds worldwide in alignment with the company’s business strategy. The HRM and HRD units are significantly considered strategic partners to its business operations. In essence, the impacts of HRM and HRD are evident through the company’s superior cultural environment. Caufield, 2005 describes the role played by HRM and HRD as the most stable and powerful force in the company. These two units create a climate and practices that handles and espouses employees in the best manner and in regard to company’s credo and values. Various analysts have termed Google Inc. a type Z U.S firm depending on the 1943 Ouchi theory on organizational culture. On studying three different organizations culture, Ouchi realized the differences in culture explained a company’s success. According to Ouchi`s framework Z type company is exhibited in following cultural characteristics; it commitment to employees is a long term contract, its evaluation is slow and qualitative, their careers are moderately based on specialty, decision making is grouped and consensual, responsibility is individual, control is implicit and informal, and finally, the company’s concern for people is global but individual at work. Ouchi states that type Z culture helps organizations to outperform typical firms (Lund 2003). This due to the fact that company’s such as Google systematically invests in its operations and employees. In turn, it obtains significant and steady improvements in regard to long term performance (Caufield 2005). This favorable cultural environment is due to incorporation and interlinking of the HRM and HRD roles and functions. HRM in Google is embedded to ensure HR is motivated and devoted to the company with complete honesty and integrity. The HR practices are referred to as ‘People Operations’, intended to emphasize that, it is not just a mere administrative function, rather aim at building a strong relationship between HR and the employer. Google lays great emphases on various HRM practices. To begin with, selection and recruiting is foremost step at Google’s overall HRM processes. Recruiting the right individuals is principal philosophy- with the median age of HR in the company being 27 years (Mullaney, 2004). The centralized recruiting team constituting of hiring specialist use the Google developed recruiting machine that categorizes the jobs to aid the recruitment process (Levenson 2003). McCarter, 2003 observes that Google involve measures that change how employees work in order to attract and maintain the best workforce. Company’s ‘Applicant Tracking system’ enables recruiters keep an account the exact number of resumes that Google websites receive, it help screen and then shortlist people for recruitment process. Shortlisted candidates take up to four rounds of interviews that are mainly carried out in an informal style. Intelligence and creativity, in addition to academic records are mainly preferred to individual work experience. What’s more, Google innovations are highly recruited in the recruiting process. The recruiting developed creative approaches and rationalized recruiting tool which delivers a particular recruiting message. The significant shift from the common traditional approach to innovative ones in terms of recruitment process, shields the company from business losses (Mullaney, 2004). Another main HRM practices in Google is compensation structure. Employees are attracted support system that help then create things, rather than by the monetary return (Josey 2005). The company’s ‘pay for performance’ compensation program focuses on rewarding strong performance, as well as a provision of training for underperformers. Motivation is also a major HRM practice significantly employed at Google Inc. Motivation mechanisms for employees at the company includes decision making and an environment that promotes determined ideas for employees to deliver. Schoenberger, 2004 notes that employees’ ideas are highly considered and may be approved for implementing, which in turn improves creativity and augment morale. Employees also enjoy flexibility of working due to unfixed compulsory working hours. Thus, workers are motivated due to the work-life balance offered in the company. Business week, 2005 affirms that Google provides both medical and day care centers facilities to enable employees balance both personal and professional life. These motivational aspects, in addition to its financial success have made Google to become one of highly preferred work environment (Lashinsky & Vogelstein 2004). As of regard to, HRD at Google it well intertwined with the HRM unit. Employee training at Google is mainly through lectures, seminars and the on the job training. This philosophy is applied on all employees to emphasize their development basically through training, in classes conducted through higher officials, on job learning, lectures by eminent personnel, through frequent departmental meetings. On the job training technique is offered through mentoring, coaching, job rotation and sitting next to a coworker for purposes of learning skills necessary for the particular task. This technique is often conducted to new employees or when the company introduces new processes. Lectures and seminars are also rampant in the company, due to their potential to get in touch with and impact a number of people. At times the lectures and seminars may come as one way communication, while sometimes team building activities are used and questions may follow to seek the retained information (Amabile, & Khaire 2008). One of the major areas of training at Google is that which impact the mind. Employees are therefore impacted both personal and professional development, for purposes of organisational productivity. This course well referred to as ‘search inside yourself’ (S.I.Y) which took nine experts to put it together, takes three steps to learn; attention training, followed by self knowledge, and finally, self-mastery. The course creates practical mental habits. The entire course takes seven weeks and is carried out four times every year, to ensure as many employee get learn. Another main program for HRD in the company is the ‘foundations of leadership and teamwork program’ which is undertaken by people during their early career in the company. The program focuses on the learners’ emotional intelligence as well so as to fit Google’s guiding principle “focus on the user”. The five module program takes five weeks, focusing on mainly four areas; social awareness, self awareness, relationship management and self management Amabile & Khaire 2008). A theoretical framework perspective in regard to Google, HR has been employed to mean the range of both HRD and HRM activities embraced by both management and employees. According to Gibb, 2003 theoretically, HRD and HRM are arguably linked but their relationship is changing rapidly, despite that HRD is said to works as part of HRM. Thus, HRD emerges as an independent academic discipline rather than a sub-discipline of HRM. Budhwar, 2000 comments that the two are becoming more fused, but are differing more and more in regard to HRM focus and HRD scope. HRM and HRD are highly connected, considering that each personnel management is responsible for the other in turn. The connections of the two at Google is thus termed ‘elusive and ambiguous’. This means they both work together but on the other hand are operated as two different entities (Markin 2003). Renwick, 2003 inherent concept of HRM is that it is a central to devolving of HRD. This means that just like HRD aims at developing HR skills and abilities for better performance, HRM is linked to the same by making sure it influence commitment of employees, and ultimately performance of business. For instance, HRM may through employee management promote an ‘integrative culture’ through line management, which HRD can as well achieve through its developmental aspects such as training. Another main way that both personnel management are linked is through application of organisational values and the emphasis laid as the fundamentals of HR leadership and management. Both rely on specialists to carry out the HR tasks properly. Indeed, HRM deliberately brings the right people for hire in Google, however, in case of any unintentional infiltration of employee in the company, HRD takes the purposeful role of aligning the workers to corporate goal. Budhwar, 2000 affirms the same by noting that a partnership approach to HR is necessary for both HRM and HRD. It necessitates a ‘triad’ approach between HRD and HRM specialists. In fact, the identification of training needs for employees, and who ought to involved in learning is done by both HR specialists. In Google, both HRD and HRM are seen to enable each other at operational level. Various analysts asserts that HRD will engage in an employee’s developmental plan with strategic focus, HRM is therefore given better employee to manage, hence, providing a key connection between the two. This is very evident in Google; the HRM is highly vigorous in undertaking its practices of selection and recruiting while noting training needs of hired people. These people are then transferred to HRD specialists for both personal and professional development courses. The linkages between both personnel managements have resulted to remarkable results for the company (Amabile, & Khaire 2008). Indeed, as of February 2013, Google Inc. ranked top three most valuable firms by utilization of analytics to reinvent human resources (Google.com). Conclusively, whether HRD works as a separate discipline rather than a sub discipline of HRM, the two are highly linked. From a theoretic perspective, Google Inc takes a strategic perspective in devolving HR to HRD and HRM. This is evident through the connection of HR activities to the initiative if the two strategic drivers. To facilitate HRD and HRM activities responsibility for HR, Google has positively clarified roles of each in delivering the best staff. Moreover, the company has provided support mechanisms of HR business partnership of both HRM and HRD, and through materials provision and meetings. As a result, performance in relation to HR activities in the company is both measured and rewarded through the corporate success of the company. All these ought to raise the HR activities profile, and facilitate HRD and HRM specialists’ willingness and ability to assume HR activities even the more. Precisely, as established above, Google Inc. has managed to link and utilize its HRM and HRD specialists and activities, for the success of the corporate goal. References Amabile, T. A., & Khaire, M 2008, Creativity and the role of the leader. Harvard Business School Publishing. Bowin, R. B., & Harvey, D 2001, Human resource management. Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall. Budhwar, P. S 2000, Evaluating levels of strategic integration and devolvement of human resource management in the UK. Journal of Personnel Review, Vol. 29, No. 2, Pages: 141-161. Caufield, J 2005, Where did Google get its value?. portal: Libraries and the Academy, Vol. 5 Issue. 4 Pages: 555-572. Dunphy, D., Benn, S., & Griffiths, A 2003, Organizational change for corporate sustainability Pages: 695-698. London: Routledge. Freeman, R. E 2010, Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Cambridge University Press. Gibb S 2003, Line manager involvement in learning and development: Small beer or big deal? Employee Relations, Vol. 25, Issue. 3, Pages: 281-293. Josey, G 2005, "How Google searches for Talents". Business Week, Issue 3928 , Pages 51-52. Lashinsky, A. & Volgestein, F 2004, "Is Google really worth it?". Fortune (Europe). Vol 150, Issue 9 , Pages: 99. Levenson, E 2003, "Don`t trust me, Google me!". Journal of New Statesman. Vol 132, Issue 4652 , 10-15. Lund, D. B 2003, Organizational culture and job satisfaction. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 18 Issue. 3, Pages: 219-236. Mankin, D. P 2003, Ambiguity and elusiveness: the principal characteristics of the relationship between HRM and HRD. Conference paper presented to the International HRM Conference, Nov., Enschede, The Netherlands. McCarter, J 2003, "Make Google your business partner". Journal of National Public Accountant , Page 21. Mullaney, T. J 2004, "A gaggle of reasons to love Google". Business Week. Vol 150, Issue 8 , Pages: 57-59. Renwick D, 2003, Line manager involvement in HRM: an inside view? Journal of Employee Relations, Vol.25, No.3, Pages: 262-280. Schoenberger, C. R 2004, "Out of Context". Forbes Vol 174, Issue 11 , Pages 64-68. Torraco, R. J 2005, Human Resource Development. Human Resource Development Review, Vol. 4, Issue. 3, Pages: 356-367. Werner, J. M., & DeSimone, R. L 2011, Human resource development. Cengage Learning. Read More