Google as of One of the Best Companies to Work in the World - Admission/Application Essay Example

?Executive Summary This report focuses on the company Google and attempts to determine reasons for their success as a leading search engine. This report further analyzes Google’s approaches to management, leadership, employee recruitment and motivation and as opposed to competition. We determine how the leadership has propagated a culture that facilitates growth, motivation and innovation. Table of Contents Table of Contents 2 1.Introduction 3 2.1.Motivational and Perceptual Theories that Define Google’s Success 4 2.2.Google’s Hiring Practices and Job Design Principles according to Organizational Values 7 2.3.Top Ten Reasons for working at Google and Their Leadership Approach 8 3.Practical Implications 9 4.Conclusion 11 5.References 12 Adair, E. 2007, Case Study Google- The world’s most powerful search engine. Leadership for Innovation: How to Organize Team Creativity and Harvest Ideas . 1 edition. Kogan Page. Philadelphia . Book 12 McShane, S. Olekalns, M & Travaglione, T. 2009, Organisational Behaviour on the Pacific Rim.Mc GrawHill Australia. 3rd Edition. Book. 12 Pride,W. Hughes,R and Kapoor, J . 2012, How Google, Now teenaged drives employees. Foundations of Business . Edition 3. Cengage Learning. Mason Ohio pp 271-272. Book 13 What's Google's Secret Weapon? An Army of Ph.D.'s. Montana Associated Technology Roundtables. June 5, 2004. Viewed 27 March 2012 Electronic Article 13 1. Introduction Google is the brain child of two entrepreneurs Larry Page and Sergey Brin who started working on this in their university dorms, a few years ago. Today Google is a multi-billion dollar enterprise which is also considered one of the best companies to work for. This report attempts to discus how this enterprise through their unique organizational culture was able to achieve so much. This report further highlights the unique leadership methods of the young founders, their policies towards promoting the “Googler” culture, employee motivation, employee selection and retention strategies and their approaches as opposed to that of competition. 2. Theoretical Arguments According to Nehls (2011, p.11) Google strategy entails combining two key functions; the first is the continual improvement of precision search results of the Google search engine and the second is integrating advertising penetration with their searches. The main function as the search engine does not yield much money but the company used the searches and as revenue generating advertising spaces for advertisers who can gain access to billions of users utilizing their search engine. Google started off with a unique product offering that enabled users to browse web pages in order or relevance and importance to their searches. The unique feature was called “PageRank”; this feature incorporates various features such as counting the number of relevant pages linked to the single page, the number of times a word(s) appears and the presence of the relevant word(s) in the title of the document (Adair, 2007, p7). The brand power of the word “Google” is so powerful that it has become an alternate term for “search engine”. Google has attained this status by making useful information accessible to billions of their users world-wide. Google presently aims to retain their position as the market leader in search advertising by constantly innovating, increasing their product offerings and creating new segments (Nehl pp 12-13). Currently Google is no longer just a search engine, their product offerings cover a wide range of areas such as telecommunication, online auctions, financial services, job placement agencies, E-readers and tablets, smart phones and even PC related hardware and software (Nehl, p14). 1. 2. 2.1. Motivational and Perceptual Theories that Define Google’s Success Hoyt (p.81) in the The American Journal of Economics and Sociology explains that Gestalt Theory that is based on our perception and experience is made up of not only separate units of experiences and perceptions but their relation to one another and the value of this relationship as a whole. So when we apply the Gestalt Theory of Perception to Google, an employee creates a perception based on the cues they get from the environment and then they evaluate the worth of those cues in relation to each other (Renninger,Hidi & Krappr et al, 1992, p.102). At Google engineers are encourage to take up diversified projects, this way there is reasonable rotation, skill acquisitions and employees have opportunities to work with different teams. So as a Google employee this freedom of decision making in linked to innovation and risk-taking and on the whole the total worth of ideas. Since the worth of ides is highly valued at Google, these cues result in a positive behavior and eventually a profitable outcome. The founders of the Google established it while they were studying for PhDs so they recruited a large number of PhDs because the value the power of research (Montana Associated Technology Roundtables, 2012). Google also encourages employees to invest 20% of their time to their “pet projects”, Google Talk and Froogle are examples of such pet projects that were developed from conception to execution (Adair,2007, p.8). Yiu, Keung and Wong (p.40, 2011) describe Equity Theory as individuals have te tendency to evaluate relationships on the basis of the outcomes of their input-output ratio and the outcomes of the input-output ratio of others. Based on this description, an employee would evaluate the effort they are putting into a job and the rewards they are getting as opposed to others who are making similar efforts. According to Pride (2012, p.271) Google does not believe in separate offices for their employees, regardless of their place in the hierarchy. So when Schmidt first became a part of Google as a CEO, the employees attempted to make a segregated office for him. Schmidt had been with Google for a long time and was one of the pioneers to the culture found it difficult to embrace such a change and eventually shared his office space with another employee. To date, employees rarely have individual offices; they are in the form of cubicles or large meeting areas that promote maximum interaction between employees. This concept has two key benefits, in terms of motivation it hugely supports the Equity theory (Yiu, Keung and Wong , p.40, 2011) whereby each employee would see that the effort they are making as an individual reaps benefits to them as individuals too and not on the basis of hierarchy. Another benefit is that it encourages openness, creativity, team-work and freedom of thought. As Further addition to Equity Theory, Google has developed a Leadership Development and Compensation Committee, this committee ensures that there is no massive difference between the salaries of top-managers and lower-level managers by keeping the management salaries in-check. They furthermore design compensation plans that ensure that they retain the best employees by providing them very good compensation. Udechuk (p.69, 2009) in his article in the Public Personnel Management compared the Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs and the Herzberg theory and concluded that Maslow’s theory attempts to discus work behaviors as a result of varying levels of attitudes such as work satisfaction, Herzberg determined the needs that result in work attitudes; these are both intrinsic and extrinsic in nature. In light of this comparison Google employees attain work satisfaction as a consequence of both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation provided by the work environment. For instance in light of Herzberg’s Motivational Factors, Google excels in terms of employee benefits and good working environment. Google has invested extensively in programs that would cater to the needs of their employees such a free doctor’s visits at offices, free meals etc—benefits that the company claims will only increase and not be taken away. And in terms of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs low level needs are fulfilled by extrinsic motivation, Google is a very good pay-master. They do have a very thorough screening process and one of the highest concentrations of computer science PhDs (Adair,2007, p 7), but once the employee is integrated into the culture of Google, they have a free reign in terms of promoting creativity and innovation—this independence in decision-making is a great intrinsic motivator and a higher level need in light of Maslow’s Hierarchy. 2.2. Google’s Hiring Practices and Job Design Principles according to Organizational Values It is said the culture that an organization eventually embraces is highly dependent on the founders. And the founders of Google are two entrepreneurs who started working on this business when they were still students at Stanford University (McShane, Olekalns and Travaglione et al, 2009). They disagreed, brainstormed and argued until they reached a refined decision. According to Vise and Malseed (2005) in their book the Google Story, Google has project teams comprising of not more than three to five people, such small sized teams ensure that there is proper recognition and cohesion between groups. McShane, Olekalns and Travaglione (2009) in their book Organizational Behavior on the Pacific Rim mention Brin and Page are directly involved in all hiring decisions and lay more emphasis on education than they do on experience. In terms of recruiting, Google engages in both internal and external hiring. The external interviewing and hiring process is undertaken by testers such as directors and senior directors (Whittaker, 2012). In terms of internal recruiting, Google encourages employees to work on varying projects including their pet projects. 2.3. Top Ten Reasons for working at Google and Their Leadership Approach Eric Schmidt joined Google in 2001, which was the brain-child of Larry Page and Sergey Brin. This led to a synergy of technical knowledge and business acumen. According to Morrow “the shared ideas and energy between the three members has been significantly lucrative for Google”. According to Morrow the three key founders of the company each takes an annual salary of $1, to lay emphasis on the fact that their key motivation is success and progress of the company and stock performance. Leaders of successful organizations coach their subordinates. Coaching refers to one-to-one relationship based on trust and aimed at facilitating learning and professional development (Carey, Philippon, & Cummings. p.53, 2011). Google believes in “boldly go where no man has gone before”, such professional-breakthroughs are achieved by means of leaders encouraging and coaching the employees to harness their creativity and think out-of-the-box. According to Mc Shane et al., the top ten reasons an individual would want to work at Google are directly linked to their organizational culture as propagated by the leadership. Leaders at Google provide direction and vision that enable employees are motivated by intrinsic rewards of working in a stimulating environment that delivers products that impact the whole world. Udechukwu (p.69, 2009) suggests that in light of various studies pertaining to employee turnover, it can be inferred that the main reason for such actions is job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Thus in order to enhance organizational commitment and boost job satisfaction Google’s approach is that “we love our employees and we want them to know it”. They accomplish this by means of creating a family-friendly environment. Pinto (p.81, 2011) in his research on “The Influence of Wage on Motivation And Satisfaction” determined that wages do impact job satisfaction among employees but they do not have a significant impact in the long-run, thus there are more intrinsic factors involved in employee job satisfaction. Thus at Google they believe that “appreciation is the best motivation”, since the nature of the work is such that brilliant minds are at work that are attempting to make a difference in the lives of millions—appreciation, recognition and acknowledgement go a long way. 3. Practical Implications Presently intellectual capital of a company makes up nearly 80% of a company’s value (Papp, p.539). In their book The Google Story, Vise and Malseed (2005) highlight that the key area of competition between Microsoft and Google is not entirely that of biggest market share, efficient operating systems or introducing the technology first, their key area of competition is recruiting and retaining the best and brilliant technologists of the world. So on the surface it may appear the companies are fighting over better product and services, on the contrary they are fighting over ideas to generate these products and services. So in order to attract these technologists, Scmidth wanted to sell the idea that Bill Gate’s Microsoft had its root in obsolete era of technology and undermined the power of the Internet. Schmidth’s aim was to attract these technologists who specialized in the areas of search which would enable them to create ideas and products that would impact the lives of millions of people globally, this is perhaps should be very important for personal growth. Microsoft is a much bigger company which has greater revenue and access to larger resources. Google on the other hand is considered as one of the best places to work, in comparison to the aging giant Microsoft (Vise & Malseed, 2005). In terms of developing a search engine, Google is several steps ahead of the nearest competition. This ability to sustain the leadership has come about due to various efforts within the Google Company. According to Montana Associated Technology Roundtables, Microsoft has nearly five times the number of employees Google has, however at Microsoft there is a designated research group which has about 700 employees in it. Google on the other hand has close to 1900 employees in their organization who are all treated as researchers working on their own ideas about the company. The Google employee pool of PhDs is also a huge contributing factor towards creativity because PhDs have a greater drive to create something new and to problem-solve. Google also poses a threat of a very different nature to Microsoft because unlike previous competitors that focused on designing innovative products, Google offered millions of world-wide consumers a product with no cost of distribution or advertising (Vise & Malseed, 2005). 4. Conclusion Google has attained the status of one of the best companies to work for in the world and an enviable position in the market through very effective strategies. The success takes root in the propagation of organizational cultures that fosters equality, innovation and the very concept of designing products that affect the lives of millions of people globally. Google invests extensive effort and time in recruiting and retaining the most brilliant minds in the field on computers, even to the extent that they value education more than experience. The premise on which Google works, that is to make information free and accessible to people world-wide has attracted a lot of advertisers and given tough competition to technology giants already present in the market. 5. References Adair, E. 2007, Case Study Google- The world’s most powerful search engine. Leadership for Innovation: How to Organize Team Creativity and Harvest Ideas . 1 edition. Kogan Page. Philadelphia . Book Carey, W. Philippon, DJ & Cummings, GG. 2011. Coaching Models for Leadership Development” An Integrated Review. Journal of Leadership Studies, Volume 5, Number 1, 2011. P 51. Journal Article. Hoyt, E. The Place of Gestalt Theory in the Dynamics of Demand. The American Journal of Economics and Sociology. Pp 81-82 Journal Article. McShane, S. Olekalns, M & Travaglione, T. 2009, Organisational Behaviour on the Pacific Rim.Mc GrawHill Australia. 3rd Edition. Book. Nehls, E F.2011. A Business Analysis Project on Google Inc.: A Market Leader Running Into Mischief. GRIN Verlag, Norderstedt. Pp 11-17. Book Papp, I. A Creative Leader. I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o u r n a l o f M a n a g e m e n t C a s e s. Szechenyiistvan University, Hungary. p. 539. Report Pinto, PP. 2011. The Influence of Wage On Motivation And Satisfaction. International Business & Economics Research Journal - September 2011 Volume 10, Number . pp. 81-82. Journal Article Pride,W. Hughes,R and Kapoor, J . 2012, How Google, Now teenaged drives employees. Foundations of Business . Edition 3. Cengage Learning. Mason Ohio pp 271-272. Book Renninger, K. ,Hidi,S. & Krapp, A.1992, The Nature of Learning. The Role of interest in Learning and Development . Psychology Press. New Jersey. Pp102-103. Book Vise DA & Malseed, M. 2005, Attacking Microsoft-Chapter 23. The Google story. Random House Digital, Inc. New York. Book What's Google's Secret Weapon? An Army of Ph.D.'s. Montana Associated Technology Roundtables. June 5, 2004. Viewed 27 March 2012 Electronic Article Whittaker, J. Arbon, J and Carollo, F. 2012. Test Leadership at Google. How Google Tests Software.Pearson Education. Westford. Book Yiu, TW, Keung, CW. & Wong, KL. 2011. Application of Equity Sensitivity Theory to Problem-Solving Approaches in Construction Dispute Negotiation. Journal of Management in Engineering. P40. Journal Article. Udechuk, II. 2009. Correctional Officer Turnover: Of Maslow's Needs Hierarchy and Herzberg's Motivation Theory. Public Personnel Management Volume 38 No. 2 Summer 2009. Pp 69-70. Journal Article Drever, J. Perceptual Learning. University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland. Pp 131-132. Report Read More