Leadership of Google and Reliance Industries - Case Study Example

Leadership study of Google and Reliance Industries Table of Contents Introduction 3 Literature Review 3 Discussion 7 Conclusion 11 Reference list 13 Introduction Google is a leading multinational technology development company headquartered in Mountain View, California in the US. It was founded by Larry Page and Sergey Brin in 1998 (Google Inc., 2015a). The company offers a wide range of products; advertising products such as Adsense which is an ad program useful for people willing to publish their works online, Adwords a platform for text based placement advertisement and Double Click which is a digital marketing technology. Google also offers internet search engines and information such as Google Search, Google Earth, Google Mobile, Google News, Google Play Store, Youtube etc. Google also offers tools and applications such as Gmail, Android (Operating system for mobile), Google Chrome, Google Talk (Google Inc., 2015a). Reliance Industries Limited is a diversified Indian group of companies. The company was founded in 1966 by Dhirubhai Ambani and the current CEO of the corporation is Mukesh Ambani. It’s headquarter is located in Navi Mumbai in India. Reliance Industries performs its operations across a large number of sectors. The company’s operations can be divided distinctly into five segments: Petrochemicals, Retail, Petroleum Refining and Marketing (R&M), Exploration and Production (E&P) and Jio. Under the Petrochemicals segment, the industry manufactures textiles, chemicals, elastomers, polyesters and polymers. Reliance Retail, established in 2006, is the largest retail enterprise in the country and it caters to a large consumer base by offering them unlimited choices. Reliance Retail is also associated with a large number of farmers and small enterprises and helped them to be a part of the retail revolution in the country. Reliance is a major exploration and production companies in India and also has a large market share in the world. Reliance Jio is an initiative taken to revolutionize the telecommunication sector and catering to the growing young Indian population (RIL, 2015a).The purpose of this project is to evaluate the manner in which Path Goal theory of leadership is incorporated in the leadership management of Google and Reliance Industries Limited. Literature Review According to Northouse (2015), leadership is a process by which an individual influences a group of followers to achieve a common goal. Leadership does not mean the qualities and characteristics possessed by an individual, but it is an interactive process between the leader and the followers. The process of leadership includes the influence of the leader on his followers and it occurs in a group which strives to attain a common goal or pursue a mutual purpose. Individuals who are involved in leadership are called leaders and the individuals towards whom leadership is directed are called followers (B.M. Bass and R. Bass, 2009; Shannahan, Bush and Shannahan, 2013; Wickham and Walther, 2007; Ronald, 2014). Though, the process involves both leaders and followers, it is the leader who generally starts the relationship, establishes the communication linkage and carries the responsibility of maintaining the relationship (Chemers, 2014; Aziz, et al., 2012). Path-goal Theory of Leadership According to Robert (1996), the path goal theory of leadership is a “dyadic theory of supervision” (Robert, 1996). It is the interaction of the superior and the subordinate in their day to day functions. It deals with how the superiors motivate his subordinates to overcome work place difficulties. The term path-goal suggests that the leaders clear the path necessary for their subordinates to help them achieve their goals. This theory of leadership in the workplace depends on two theories of motivation: goal setting theory and expectancy theory (Malik, Aziz and Hassan, 2014). According to the goal setting theory, a useful way to motivate people is set before them challenges with a realistic goal and offer them rewards for the attainment of the goal (McLaurin, 2006). The expectancy theory gives explanation that why people work hard to attain their targets at the workplace (Bush, 2009). Employees will work hard to accomplish the work assigned to them only if fulfilling the challenges results in something that are valuable to them such as a pay hike, promotion or a respectable position in the organization. If individuals do not value the reward they get for achieving the target or if they realize that their effort towards the work does not lead to the accomplishment of the goal, then they will not be motivated to work hard (Barrett and Mayson, 2008). According to OBoyle and Cummins (2013), the path goal theory of leadership, leaders are successful if they provide their subordinates with the support and information required by them to complete their assignments. Path-goal theory is a particular type of contingency theory which focuses on the ability of the leader to adopt to the particular working style of his subordinate and to the situation in which the subordinate is working (Malik, Aziz and Hassan, 2014). The path goal theory discusses four types of leadership styles which can help their followers achieve their targets; supporting, directive, participative and achievement oriented. Supportive leadership is stated as being considerate to the needs of his subordinates and creating a comfortable environment for work (McLaurin, 2006). Directive leadership involves the behaviour in which the subordinate is being made aware of what is expected from them, give them clear instructions and ensure that the members know the rules and processes by which they can succeed. Participative leadership is involving the subordinates in the decision process and considering their suggestions and opinions (Yukl, 2007). Achievement-oriented leadership indicates setting difficult challenges, expecting high level of performance and showing the belief that the subordinates posses the capability to achieve the goals (Edd, 2011). According to this theory, the choice of which type of leadership the leader applies in the workplace depends on the chance factors; the environmental factors and the individual factors. The environmental factors include the task structure, working group and the authority of the organization. These factors are external to the subordinates. Individual factors deal with characteristics inherent in the subordinate such as the skill possessed by them, their experience, personality etc (House, 1996). Figure 1: A path goal model (Source: Polston-Murdoch, 2013) When the nature of work is very stressful and monotonous, supportive leadership is very effective. It increases the efficiency of the subordinate as it enhances his confidence, job satisfaction and reduces the negative environmental factors. Directive leadership is effective when the employee does not possess a clear understanding of his job and there is a lot of confusion in the work surroundings. Participative leadership works best when the subordinates are eager to take on responsibilities on their own. Achievement-oriented leadership is helpful when the work is very complex and the work environment is volatile as it increases the confidence of the subordinate to perform better (Polston-Murdoch, 2013). Acceptance of leader is the situation where the subordinate obeys all the orders of the leader and accepts all the decisions the leader takes. In this state the follower is experiences a high comfort level with the leader and is highly pleased to work with him or her. In a study carried out by Aziz, Silong, Karim and Hassan (2012), they tested the path goal theory of leadership in the telecom sector of Pakistan by surveying 60 middle and 140 lower managers in four mobile companies. According to the study, the task structure and stress are the two factors affecting the acceptance of leader and these variable increase the acceptance of leader. It was also found that there is no significant difference in the acceptance of leader according to gender, age, qualification and experience. They also concludes that there is a significant relation between leadership behaviour and subordinate acceptance of leader. These findings strongly support the path-goal theory of leadership (Shannahan, Bush and Shannahan, 2013). According to Silverthorne (2001), the path- goal theory only is only applicable to the relationship between the managers and the subordinates and is not supported for the relation between the subordinates and the peers. In the study, Silverthorne tested the applicability of the theory in a non-western culture based on data collected in Taiwan. He considered three groups of subjects for the study; the managers, the subordinates and the peers. Path-goal theory suggests that leaders prefer a high task structure than the subordinates of the peers but Silverthrone in this study showed that the preference for task structure is equivalent among all the groups. The theory also suggests that there is consistency among the type of leadership, the efforts that leads to performance and the efforts that lead to rewards. The study concluded that the relationship between these three variables are highly inconsistent as directive leadership is mostly focus on the tasks while supportive leadership emphasizes on relationships (Silverthorne, 2001). According to the critics of the theory, the effective leadership does not depend on the instrumentality of the leaders and the complications appearing on the path of success of the employees do not match the theory. According to them, leadership skills often take a second position to job experience and expertise when decisions are made on promotions and recruitment in an organization. They state that the most effective leader is the one who can identify the hindrances and the deficiencies in a work environment and behave according to the situation to minimize or eliminate the problems (Silverthorne, 2001). Discussion In the above section, a particular theory of leadership- the Path-goal theory has been discussed in details. A company from the United States of America and another company from India have been chosen. American company Google and Indian company Reliance Industries Limited (RIL) has been selected for the study. In this section, the applicability of the path goal theory on the leadership strategy of both the companies has been examined. In both the companies, it has been observed that the top management comprising of the founders, influences the leadership strategy of both the companies significantly. Leadership Strategy of Google Google has been named as the 2014 “Best Company to Work For” by Fortune magazine together with Great Place to Work Institute. Google holds the top position in the list for the fifth time in 2014. The Fortune Magazine evaluates the workplace culture of companies using the Trust Index Employee Survey and the Culture Audit (Google Inc, 2015c). The Trust Index Employee Survey evaluates the overall job satisfaction, the employees’ attitude towards the management and the camaraderie. The Culture Audit measures the impact of the company’s programs and policies on the workplace culture and also on its employees. It takes into account the payments and benefits offered to the employees, hiring norms, recognition programs, internal communication method training and diversification efforts. It is observed that the combination of participative and achievement –oriented leadership has been proven to be effective for the company (Great Place to work Institute, 2015). In an initiative called Project Oxygen undertaken by Google in 2009, the experts evaluated the performance of the leaders (The New York Times, 2011). They conducted a survey among the employees about their perception towards their team leaders. It was found that most of the employees were unsatisfied with their bosses. Under the project, the surveyors identified eight necessary skills a leader must possess in order to be successful. They also listed the required qualities according to their importance. In the early days of the establishment of the company, the leadership strategy was to hire the technical experts and provide them with full freedom to work on their own. In this way, some of the experts emerged to be very good leaders and some ended up being the worst though they were technically most efficient in their fields. According to the surveyors, technical efficiency emerged as the least desired quality. Leaders do need to be technically efficient but the most desired quality is to build a connection with the team members and being accessible to them whenever necessary; to spent some time with team members and guide them through the path following which they can be achieve their goals efficiently and timely (The New York Times, 2011). Participative leadership at Google: In participative leadership, the leaders involves the subordinates in the decision making process. The decision-making process involves both strategic decision making and tactical decision making. Strategic decision-making is taking decision on new products or process while tactic decision-making is the deciding about procedure of implementation of a strategy. It has been found that Google also encourages the full participation of its employees. It tries to maintain an open culture in which its employees feel free to share their ideas and opinions. Googlers (employees at Google) can directly interact with their founders on a weekly basis and can ask questions and discuss with them about company issues (tactic decision making). Office premises are designed in such a way that employees can interact with the team members and share ideas and thoughts (strategic decision-making) (Google Inc., 2015c). Therefore, Google involves its employees on both strategic as well as tactic decision –making. Achievement- oriented leadership at Google: In achievement-oriented leadership, leaders are eager to improve the performance of the subordinates, set very high standards for them and show confidence that they can achieve the goals. Google believes in setting challenging goals and strive to fulfil them through innovation and creativity. It believes in remaining unsatisfied with its achievement and constantly motivates its employees to work with excellence. The leaders at Google believe that their employees can perform well to achieve targets which enhance the confidence of the employees (Google Inc., 2015b). Supportive leadership at Google: In supportive style of leadership, leaders try to build a friendly atmosphere and give high priority to the needs and wellbeing of the subordinates. The leaders of Google believe in the policy that ‘One size fits one” (Google Inc, 2015b). Thus leaders adapt to the specific needs of the subordinates to help them achieve their target. At Google, leaders practice supportive leadership style (Google Inc, 2015b). The founders of Google, Page and Brin, majorly influences leadership within the organization. They along with Eric Schmidt (joined Google in 2001), who possesses multiple degrees in engineering and business management used to meet every day and discuss their business problems and went on to built the technological and corporate infrastructure and continue with its rapid progress. The founders also desire to retain a start-up like environment in the organization and thus appoint a Chief Cultural Officer. In order to ensure that the company remains innovative, it also appoints a Chief Internet Evangelist and a Distinguished Entrepreneur (Ben Morrow, 2015). Since its inception, Google has more than 40,000 employees worldwide and it also conducts leadership development program called the Building Opportunities for leadership and Development (BOLD) (Google Inc., 2015d). It is observed that Google applies path –goal theory of leadership. It practices the participative, supportive and achievement oriented style of leadership. Leadership Strategy of Reliance Industries Limited Reliance is a leading corporation in India and has featured in the Fortune Global 500 lists of world’s largest corporations in 2014 for the tenth time consecutively. RIL has been identified as the most environment friendly and greenest companies in the world according to Newsweek’s Green Rankings 2014 (RIL, 2015b). Leadership at Reliance industries is supportive and participative. It has 23,853 employees in 2014 and they consider their employees as the lifeline of the company. Reliance industries Limited (RIL) considers their employees as the core to their success (RIL, 2015c). Participative leadership at RIL: In participative nature of leadership, leaders take opinions and suggestions from the followers and invites them to take part in decisions that directly affects them. RIL communicates with its employees in a monthly, quarterly, annually basis and also whenever they need. The company uses multiple internal communication systems to keep their employees informed and updated about news and events. They also take feedback from their employees on various issues on a regular basis in order to help them perform in a more efficient way (Sriram, 2012; RIL, 2015c). Therefore, participative leadership is practiced at RIL. Achievement-oriented leadership at RIL: Achievement –oriented leadership sets challenging goals, improves the work performance and expects high goal attainments. The current chairman of the RIL, Mukesh Ambani, son of the founder Dhirubhai Ambani, follows his father’s leadership style of relationship based leadership. They believe in practicing “infectious impatience” which implies that work is not only done but it gets done in double quick time. Thus, leaders at RIL practices achievement oriented leadership as they set before their employees goals that are difficult to achieve. They build confidence in their subordinates by encouraging them to perform efficiently (Sriram, 2012). Supportive Leadership at RIL: Supportive leadership emphasizes on the specific needs and satisfaction of the individual subordinates. RIL practices supportive type of leadership by prioritizing skill development of its employees; taking care of the required health and safety aspects and providing them satisfaction at the workplace. There are trade unions in the manufacturing units of the industries. The company leaders regularly take the benefit of the existence of trade unions by interacting with them on a regular basis. Through these interactions, the leaders try to understand the needs and problems of their employee’s works on improving their job satisfaction. The company supports its contract workers by providing them several benefits such as canteen, health facilities and many opportunities for skill development (RIL, 2015c). The company also supports its employees by providing them with a safe and secure environment. The main priority of RIL is to have a zero accident workplace and an environment which enhances the wellbeing of its employees. All the offices, manufacturing units and E&P sites of the company are equipped with health-centers which are attended by qualified health workers regularly. This initiative of the company is named Mission Wellness. Workers employed in the hazardous sectors are examined on a regular basis through health check-ups. Employees tested positive with lifestyle diseases, heart problems, communication diseases and diabetes are provided with appropriate measures to improve their health conditions (RIL, 2015c). RIL is the fastest growing corporation in the world which has expanded and integrated into many industries. In order to maintain its performance, it initiated a leadership development program known as the Reliance Accelerated Leadership Program (RALP). It is one of the most significant initiatives undertaken in the organizational history of the company. Through this program, the corporation aims at achieving its objective of business transformation (RALP, 2015). Conclusion Google is a multinational company in the USA, whereas, Reliance Industries limited is also a large Indian company with international presence. In this paper, the path goal theory of leadership and its applicability on the leadership strategy of both Google and RIL has been discussed. It has been observed that both the companies follow the path-goal theory of leadership. The path -goal theory comprises of directive, supportive, achievement –oriented and participative styles of leadership. Google follows the path-goal theory by practicing mainly participative, achievement oriented and supportive type of leadership. Also, it has been found that RIL also follows the same type of leadership- supportive, participative and achievement oriented. It is observed that none of the companies follow the directive style of leadership under the path-goal theory. Google is mostly focused in practising achievement-oriented leadership because it strives for innovation and thus inspire its employees to achieve something novel but RIL on the other hand gives importance to supportive leadership. Directive leadership involves giving clear instructions and making aware the subordinate of what is expected. It is effective only when the followers are confused about their work. Thus it can be said that, at present companies avoid practicing directive type of leadership and believes in introducing participative, supportive and achievement-oriented leadership. It is observed that whether a company is located in a developed country such as the United States of America or in an underdeveloped country such as India, their leadership strategies do not differ much. Both the companies believe in supporting their employees, giving importance to their opinions and encouraging them to perform efficiently. Reference list Aziz, F.A., Silong, A.D., Karim, A.A. and Hassan. H., 2012. Leadership practices in public sector in selected countries: An integrative literature review. Journal of Management Policy and Practice, 13(1), pp. 113-126. Barrett, R. and Mayson, S., 2008. The founding fathers on leadership. London: McGraw-Hill Higher Education. Bass, B. M. and Bass, R., 2009. The bass handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications. New York: Simon and Schuster. Ben Morrow, 2015. Leadership & Culture at Google Inc. [online] Available at: [Accessed 6 May]. Bush, P., 2009. Leading independent contractors: A parallel power model. Journal of Management Research, 9(2), pp. 72-82. Chemers, M., 2014. An integrative theory of leadership. New York: Psychology Press. Edd, J. K., 2011. Strategic Leadership: Leading Change in a New Age. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf. Google Inc, 2015a. About Company. [online] Available at: < http://www.google.co.in/about/company/ > [Accessed 6 May 2015]. Google Inc, 2015b. Philosophy. [online] Available at: < http://www.google.com/about/company/philosophy/ > [Accessed 6 May 2015]. Google Inc, 2015c. Culture. [online] Available at: < http://www.google.com/about/company/facts/culture/ > [Accessed 6 May 2015]. Google Inc, 2015d. Google for Education. [online] Available at: < [online] Available at: < https://www.google.com/edu/resources/programs/bold-immersion/ > [Accessed 6 May 2015] Great Place to work Institute, 2015. [online] Available at: < http://www.greatplacetowork.com/index2.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2915 > [Accessed 6 May 2015] House, R. J., 1996. Path–goal theory of leadership: Lessons, legacy, and a reformulated theory. Leadership Quarterly, 7, pp. 323–352. Malik, S.H., Aziz, S. and Hassan, H., 2014. Leadership behavior and acceptance of leaders by subordinates: Application of path goal theory in telecom sector. International Journal of Trade, Economics and Finance, 5(2), pp. 170-175. McLaurin, J. R., 2006. The role of situation in the leadership process: a review and application. Academy of Strategic Management Journal, 5, pp. 97-114. Northouse, P.G., 2015. Leadership: Theory and practice. California: Sage Publications. OBoyle, I. and Cummins, P., 2013. Examining theories of individual performance management. Training & Management Development Methods, 27(5), pp. 369-377. Polston-Murdoch, L. 2013. An investigation of path-goal theory, relationship of leadership style, supervisor- related commitment, and gender, 6(1), pp.13-44. Reliance Accelerated leadership Program, 2015. About RALP. [online] Available at: < http://alp.ril.com/about_ralp_essence.html > [Accessed 6 May 2015]. RIL, 2015a. Products and brands. [online] Available at: < http://www.ril.com/OurCompany/ProductsAndBrands.aspx > [Accessed 6 May 2015]. RIL, 2015b. Our Business. [online] Available at: < http://www.ril.com/OurBusinesses/Exploration.aspx> [Accessed 6 May 2015]. RIL, 2015c. Sustainability Reports. [online] Available at: < http://www.ril.com/Sustainability/CorporateSustainability.aspx > [Accessed 6 May, 2015] Ronald, B., 2014. Comprehensive leadership review-literature, theories and research. Advances in Management, 7(5), p. 52-66. Shannahan, K. L., Bush, A. J., and Shannahan, R. J., 2013. Are your salespeople coachable? How salesperson coachability, trait competitiveness, and transformational leadership enhance sales performance. Academy of Marketing Science, 41(1), pp. 40-54. Silverthrone, C., 2001. A test of the path-goal leadership at Taiwan. Leadership & Organizational Development Journal, 22(4), p. 151. The Economic Times, 2012. Reliance Industries Limiteds leadership course developing new breed of executives for top roles. [online] Available at: < http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2012-07-30/news/32942527_1_reliance-industries-reliance-managers-reliance-s-ability > [Accessed 6 May 2015]. The New York Times, 2011. Google’s quest to build a better boss. [online] Available at: < http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/13/business/13hire.html?_r=0 > [Accessed 6 May]. Wickham, K. R. and Walther, J. B., 2007. Perceived behaviors of emergent and assigned leaders in virtual groups. International Journal of E-Collaboration, 3(1), pp. 1-17. Yukl, 2007. Leadership in organizations. New Delhi: Pearson Education India. Read More