Strategic Human Resource Management - Google - Case Study Example

Report in Strategic Human Resource Management (Google) Name: Institution: Course Title: Tutor: Date: 1.0 Introduction The emergence of Google is traceable Sergey Brin and Larry Page met at Stanford University in 1995. In 1996, they initiated a search engine operating on Stanford servers called BackRub. In 1997, the duo decided to rename the company Google. Presently, the company is about 14 years old and with more than 30, 000 employees worldwide. The firm has its headquarters in Mountain View, California. Moreover, it has 70 offices in more than 40 countries worldwide. The company is an information communication and technology based company focusing on different perspectives based on their operations goal of making it easy to find information. The company engages in computer systems design and online information services. Their business operations have different scopes with numerous products. The first scope is on web based services like web search engine, Google chrome browser, media for image, home & office for creating and sharing online documents, specialised search like blogs & alerts, social for sharing mailing lists and discussion groups, scholarly for searching scholarly papers. The second focus is on business fraternity. These include advertising, publishing, cloud computing and website optimisation (Google, 2012). 2.0 Google’s Strategy Ireland & Hitt (2005, p.68); Thompson, Strickland and Gamble (2005) posits that the anchor of any successful business organization relies on the ability of its top management to formulate and boldly execute strategies. According to Henry (2008, p. 141) firms should strategise in relation to their mission, industry, resources and competitive position. These considerations are crucial as they aide in crafting executable strategies aimed at giving an organization a competitive advantage against business rivals. Before looking at the strategy, lets first look at what shapes Google’s corporate strategy as explained above. The first is the mission which is to “organise the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful” (Google, 2012). For them to achieve the above mission, the firm has adopted corporate strategy of responding to market needs and managing change so as to meet customer requirements and improve brand value by being innovative, creative, engaging in total quality management, embracing strategic partnership, collaboration & acquisition, adopting management based on leadership & performance, standardising their operations and involving in corporate social responsibility. According to Google (2012), the organisation has what they call as “things they know to be true,” these ten points guide their strategic plan, operations and products & services to be launched. The other strategic tool is based on their organisation culture. The firm puts a strong emphasis on employees and leadership. This is irrespective of the spatial location, language or religion. All these allow them to build layers of advantage over competitors. To show how they have embraced the concept of innovation so as to address their mission, from inception to present, the firm has been launching masterpiece products and services from one after the other. This list include being able to search in numerous languages, Google chrome browser for different operating systems, android phone, Google maps and Google books among many others. Apart from being innovative, in business world it is recorded that is not the strongest that survive but those who adapt to change. In order to capture this, they produce what the customers need. These include customised language, ease of editing, ability to personalise Google.com and Google instant previews. The other example is strategic partnership and acquisition that the firm has done over the years so as to reach certain target market or acquire technology and capacity. For instance, the firm at one partnered with Yahoo, AOL and Twitter among many. 3.0 Human Resource Goals Cost leadership is a business strategy that enables companies such to gain competitive advantage and maximize their market place share. Competitors in the market place usually achieve cost leadership by making their business processes and procedures to be the lowest in terms of production costs (Daft, Murphy and Willmott, 2010, p. 59). Currently, Google human resource goal is based on hiring those who are smart & determined and with skills & ability and not experience. Moreover, their system is based on the idea of hand-on contribution. This shows that the approach that the firm has adopted is value based and not on cost. In this case, the firm will employ an employee and pay him/her according to his/ her value and the contribution in creating value to the end consumer (Google, 2012). Social legitimacy is derived from social justice. The tenets of social justice are built on premise that “all have equal rights to the generally widespread system of basic liberties well-matched with a related system of liberty for all.” The second posits that “social and economic inequalities within a society should be arranged so that they are both: 1) to the advantage of the least disadvantaged members of the society subject to the initial principle; and 2) attached to offices and positions which are open to all members of society under circumstances of fair equal opportunity” (Zammuto, 1982, p. 45). In essence, this concept can be understood through minimum regret concept. In this concept, “firms should seek to minimize constituents regrets over the actual consequences of their participation in the organisation” (Keeley, 1978 cited in Zammuto, 1982, p. 45). To me, the disadvantaged in this case are the employees since they depend on the firm as their livelihood source while they generate for it income. To balance their cost effectiveness and social acceptability and reduce regrets associated with their employees, the firm has put in numerous measures that make the employees’ life easier and enjoyable at work. These measures are easily seen in their organisation’s culture. In most of their offices, they have programs that allow one to transform from campus life to corporate world, they have entertainments services, free meals, swimming spa, giving engineers 20 % of the total time for special projects, health benefits and good perks (Strickland, 2012; CCN money, 2012). From the above, it is clearly evident that the firm is fully maximising on its human and social capital so as to further production, creation of value and market leadership. 4.0 HR Strategy/ Policies/Practices Employees are the epicentre of idea creation and implementation of strategic management plan. Thus, it is important to integrate human resource with organisation’s strategic plan (Denning, 2000, p. 2). Google has implemented numerous human resource management strategies. The first is in terms of employee recruitment and training. The firm’s recruitment policy is based on skills, one’s ability and not on experience (Google, 2012). This means that they lay a lot of emphasis on skills, ability and employee development in the course of work. Moreover, the firm acknowledges the importance of equity and diversity since they employ people irrespective of background, race religion or beliefs. The second is evident is reward management. According to Armstrong and Murlis (2007, p. 99) employees ought to be paid according to their skills and contribution to the organisation. This is exactly what Google company has done. Moreover, they offer incentives at work place to increase the internal drive of employees by combining fun and work. Their approach of providing free meals, spa, having standby doctor, laundry, and billiards is based on motivation theory whereby one feel encouraged when they are rewarded for their achievements. Theory of X and Y notes that there are two classes of managers. The view of X managers is that they see employees as skivers who are in need of close supervision, while Y managers who are optimistic, see employees as those who require motivation in order to attain required objectives (Bernstain, 2011, 591). From the observation, Google management at have adopted the Y theory of motivation. The top level managers are entrenched with the responsibility of providing leadership and vision. Moreover, they believe in hands-on approach by employees whereby employees are encouraged to participate in company process and even they can have a direct chat with the CEO (Google, 2012). Closely related to the above is performance management. This can be viewed as the creation of collaborative effort between the supervisors and employees by bringing them into line with the strategic management plan of the company. This is done through explaining expectations shared as well as decreasing obstacles to poor performance (Bacal, 2012, p.3, 4 & 5). This approach in a participatory way sets out what is to be attained by employees or departments over time (Koontz and Weihrich, 2008, p. 92). This is exactly how Google engages their employees especially engineers. In their organisation culture and what they believe in, they say that employees are allowed to formulate what they want to achieve in relation to the firm’s mission. To reduce the barriers to performance, the firm ensures that the working environment is fit in all perspectives. From the above observation, Google has adopted and employed best practice model in their HRM strategy. In their approach, they have adopted a systems view to organisation. The HR strategy in this firm takes into consideration organisation behaviour, concepts of managing people and personnel management. Weightman (2004, p.3) posits that to increase productivity, the point of entry is for top level management to adopt people management strategies. Just look at the Google’s phenomenal growth since 1998, it is based on knowledge, creativity and innovation from employees. With the right environment provided by management, the employees have been able to produce wonderful products in line with market trends thus, making the firm to gain market leadership. 5.0 Employee Voice Communication is plays an important function in any organisation as it allows for information and knowledge flow. Moreover, it allows the management to build a cohesive team and close working rapport within and between employees, managers and external environment. Thus, there should be smooth flow of information at vertical and horizontal level and feed back in the organisation. Employees are important source of knowledge as individual and group. The management should constructively tap this. Moreover, the firm should adopt industrial relations systems that allow for the input of employees (Compton, 2009, p. 2). In Google, employee voice is valued. First in their organisation culture employees are encouraged to be pro active and take hand-on approach to all processes. Moreover, to recognise the value of employees, any employee in over their 70 offices can talk directly to the CEO (Google, 2012). This allowed employees to be productive and source of creativity and innovation. 6.0 Diversity Management/Cross-cultural or Global Concerns/Social Responsibility Many global organizations find themselves in environments that are full of cross cultural ethical considerations (Sims & Gegez, 2004). Such cross cultural ethical considerations or perspective affect how global organizations transact business and interact on the international arena. Ethical leadership of Google is clearly outlined in their policy of what they believe in. These ties with what Sims & Gegez (2004) see as the ingredients of ethical leadership. These include integrity, ethical awareness, corporate social responsibility, motivation, empowerment and ethical accountability. Cultural diversity enhances the public, work places and schools in various ways (Horwitz and Horwitz, 2007, p.988). Google places a strong emphasis on workplace diversity. This is why they employ people from different dross cultural background and do not support any form of discrimination so long as one meets their organisation culture of skills, ability and they have talent. Moreover, to tap global market, Google, domesticate its standardised services to different regions. Internationally, there is the comprehension that organizations cannot only base their performance on profits recover alone (Geraghty, 2010, p.141). Ethical approaches to undertaking business and improving brand value have over the years have gained paramount position. Corporate social responsibility (CSR) forms a stage of admiration by business organizations for being given chance by the host community to carry out business amid them by taking resource from their society. One special type of CSR is sustainability reporting by firms (Aras and Crowther, 2008, p. 279). Since its inception in 1998, Google has engaged in numerous CSR all over the world by sponsoring researchers that contribute to human development and aiding disaster victims among others. Moreover, they allow and finance their employees to engage in projects that will benefit societies (Google, 2012). This is a well planned process that they use to improve their brand value and acceptability in the society. 7.0 Individual Performance/Employment Relationship Google values individual performance and acknowledges the role they play in shaping the firm. The firm engages in talent management as means of enhancing production (Google, 2012). The core of industrial relation is found on the fact that at a time employers policy might not be holistically good enough to the employees or vice verse (Lansbury, 2000, p. 31). Theoretically, the engagement of the firm with employees can be seen in terms of internal, rewards develop from the nature of the work and external rewards develop from pay and conditions (Lakomski, 2005). Moreover, the employment relations adopted by the firm from the above observation are in two paradigms. The first is neo classical approach and pluralism approach. Pluralism approach moves ahead the balance of power notion between employers and workers or through trade unions and federation of workers. On the other hand, neo classicism embraces individual bargain rather than collective arrangements. Google allows employees to bargain collectively and join trade unions, but also they bargain directly with employees about their pay packages. 8.0 Future They are two conditions in this world. Change with the changing time or be changed by the changing time. Darwin cited in Tung (2001, p. 41) states that it is not the strongest that survive, but those who are able to adapt to change. The greatest way to expect change is through taking the lead initiative so that a company can enjoy first mover advantage. For a company to stay afloat, it has to be approachable change either at industrial level or the larger macro-economic environment. Organizational change can only be achieved through a visionary leadership that is capable to churn out strategic management plans that will guide the internal operations of the company. One approach towards this as seen in Google is the recurrent development/ total quality management and strategic partnership. The company produces goods and services that are in line with customer requirements through innovation and creativity. From the path that they have taken in managing their employees the future is bright. 9.0 Conclusion From the above observation, the firm is on the right track in terms of its human resource management strategy and how it aligns it to the overall business strategy. To show how they are valued, CCN money (2012) reports that they get 1, 300 resumes a day and is ranked the first among top 100 best companies to work for globally. The organisation sees human resource as its greatest tool for conquering marketing by delivering products that meets the needs, wants, security and knowledge needs of the marker. The firm has been able to integrate its marketing research with the expected output of employees. The strongest point in their HR policy is on leadership, reward management and performance management. This kind of positioning is bound to take them to greater heights of market leadership through production of superior products and services that are in tandem with market requirements. References Aras, G and Crowther, D 2009, Corporate sustainability reporting: a study in disingenuity. Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 87, no. 1, p. 279-288. Armstrong, H and Murlis, M 2007, Reward management: a handbook of remuneration strategy and practice, Kogan Page, London. Bacal, R 2012, Performance management, McGraw-Hill, New York. Bernstein, D 2011, Essential of psychology, Cengage Learning, Belmont. CNN money 2012, 100 best companies to work for 2007, viewed May 10, 2012 from http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/bestcompanies/2007/snapshots/1.html Compton, R 2009, Towards an Integrated Model of Strategic Human Resource Management – An Australian Case Study, Research and Practice in Human Resource Management, vol. 17, no. 2, p. 81-93. Daft, R., Murphy, J and Willmott, H 2010, Organisation theory and design, Cengage Learning, Hampshire. Denning, S 2000, Practice of workplace participation: management-employee relations at three participatory firms, Greenwood publishing group, West port. Geraghty, L 2010, Sustainability reporting - measure to manage, manage to change. Keeping Good Companies, No. 3, P. 141-145. Google 2012, Company overview, viewed May 10, 2012 from http://www.google.com/about/company/ Henry, A 2008, Understanding Strategic Management, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Horwitz, S and Horwitz, I 2007, The Effects of Team Diversity on Team Outcomes: A Meta- Analytic Review of team Demography, Journal of Management, vol. 33, no.1, p. 987- 1015. Ireland, R & Hitt, M 2005, Achieving and maintaining strategic competitiveness in the 21st century: The role of strategic leadership. Academy of Management Executive, vol. 19, no. 4, p. 63-77. Koontz, H and Weihrich, H 2008, Essentials of management: an international perspective, Tata McGraw-Hill, New Delhi. Lakomski, G 2005, Managing without leadership: towards a theory of organizational functioning, Elsevier, Andover, Amsterdan. Lansbury, R 2000, Work place change and employment relations in Australia: prospects for a new social partnership. The drawing board: an Australian review of public affairs. Vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 29-45 Sims, R & Gegez, A 2004, Attitudes Towards Business Ethics: A Five Nation Comparative Study, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 50, pp. 253–265 Strickland, J 2012, How the Googleplex works, viewed May 10, 2012 from http://computer.howstuffworks.com/googleplex3.htm Thompson, A., Strickland, A and Gamble, J 2005, Crafting and Executing Strategy: The Quest for Competitive Advantage, Concepts and Cases, McGraw- Hill, New York. Tung, R 2001, Learning from world class companies, Cengage Learning, London. Weightman, J 2004, Managing people, Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, London. Zammuto, R 1982, Assessing organisational effectiveness: systems change, adaptation and strategy, State University of New York Press, Albany. Read More