Analysis of Google HR strategy

For more information please contact ekaterina@researchoptimizer.com www.researchoptimizer.com +972549137013

Our employees, who call themselves Googlers, are everything. We hope to recruit many more in the future. We will reward and treat them well. Larry Page and Sergey Brin, Founders of Google

1. Introduction Managing human resources effectively has become vital to

organizations within the modern and fast paced business environment (Caldwell, Chatman, & O'Reilly,1990). Human Resources specialists are

more important in business strategies today where market is dynamic and changeable.

1.1.

Objectives of the study

To analyze HRM technique and methods To analyze how employees help a company in differentiating itself from its competitors To analyze how companies attract the best -knowledge workers and retain employees in a competitive environment To analyze the innovative HR practices and the 'Best Place to W ork For' culture at Google To analyze the future implications of Googles HR practices in the long run

2. 2.1.

Google.com Background of the Company

Source: http://www.google.com/

Google (illustrations of the company web site presented in Appendix 1 ) is a company that was conceptualized in a dorm room by two Stanford University college students, 24-year-old Larry Page (Larry) and 23 year old Serg ey Brin (Brin), in 1996 (Iyer &Davenport, 2008) and has morphed into one of the greatest technological powerhouses in operation today. It then diversifies into

e-mail, online mapping, office productivity, social networking, and video sharing services. Google was registered in September 1998. It had less than 20 employees and was answering 10,000 search queries each day. A year later, the number increased to 60 million queries a day (company website). Till 1999, Google had no system for generating significant revenues. The company made some money by licensing the search service to other sites. Under pressure from the board to get professional help, the founders recruited Eric Schmidt in early 2001. Schmidt was surprised to discover that every Friday the founders shared Googles progress with all the employees and on occasions they included a

detailed financial review (Vogelstein & Burke, 2004). He requested Brin and Page to discontinue the practice but soon realized that the meetings were ingrained in Google's culture and united the staff. In a 10 -person management meeting to discuss ways to generate revenues, Schmidt found that each person had a viewpoint backed by plenty of data. Schmidt realized that Google employees loved to talk it out, jettisoning hierarchy, business silos and layers of management for a flatter, networked structure where the guy with the best data won (Ben Elgin, 2005).

2.2.

Organizational Goal and Vision

Googles mission statement is To organize the world information and make it universally accessible and useful (Google.com). The work culture and employee empowerment philosophy at Google was apparent from the day the company was launched in 1998. The founders, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, wanted to establish Google as a company that was to be seen as a company run by the geeks (Lashinsky Adam). The HR Department, in its alignment with the business strategy of trying to attract the best minds across the globe to work for Google, has since always aimed to become the strategic partner to the business operations.

2.3.

Cultural environment

Schein (1988) defines the culture as: The climate and practices that organizations develop around their handling of people, or to the espoused values and credo of an organization. Organization culture is a rich description of organizational life (Barney, 2002). Organization culture impacts the strategies, motivation levels and the structure of an organization. Schein (1996) describes it as the most powerful and stable force in organizations. Googles organizational culture can be analyzed thought Ouchis framework (1943) . Ouchi studied three different companys culture and saw that the

differen ces between those explained a part of the companys success. Depending on his theory it seems that Google Inc. is the type Z US firms. Fig 1 Ouchis framework
Cultural characteristics Commitment to employees Evaluation Careers Slow and qualitative Large and not based on specialty Control Decision making Implicit and informal Grouped and consensual Responsibility Concern for people Collective Holistic (firm and family) Individual Narrowed (individual tasks) Fast and quantitative Very narrowed and specialty based Explicit and formal Individual Slow and qualitative Moderately based on specialty Implicit and informal Grouped and consensual Individual Global (individual at work) Type J (Japanese model) Life contract Type A (typical American model Short term contract Type Z (credited American model) Long term contract

Source: Siehl, C. & Martin, J. (1998), Measuring Organizational Culture

Ouchi argues that the culture of the Type Z firms helps those to outperform typical American firms. The main reason it that firms like Google systematically invests in their people and operations over the long run and so obtain stead y and significant improvements in the long-term performance. Google tries to retain its employees and evaluate them in a quantitative but also qualitative manner. In fact, the company made its work environm ent colorful and vehicles the image of a fun place to work through what it proposes (Siehl & Martin, 1998). For example, employees can have free snacks or bring their pet at the office or go to the gym and spa salon (environmental atmosphere illustrated in Appendix 2). Employees can benefit from flexible working hours and have some time for their self-directed projects which shows the importance of the creativity and innovation from each and in every department. Moreover control is done through informal and implicit mechanism. There arent any

managerial hierarchies or management structure, which gives the employees complete freedom (Silvester, Anderson& Patterson, 1999). Even thought employees can make their own decision if something is wrong on a product t o rectify it decisions are usually occurring in groups and based on the principles of full information sharing. Plus, the concern for people goes beyond the individual at work and extends to the individuals interests, hobbies, beliefs etc. Google culture can be also analyzed and defined as an organic structure (See Appendix 3). This type of structure is characterized by flexibility, empowerment and teamwork (Siehl, & Martin, 1998) . This structure defines well Googles organization as it is non-hierarchical and cross- functional: there arent any barriers between the different departments. People are encouraged to get involved in other activities then their own. Also the top management leaves their office door open in order for workers to feel free to come and talk directly. Moreover employees empowerment and the decentralization of power can be noted (Steven, Brad &Suciu, 2004). Googlers are rewarded for their hard work in an extremely relaxed environment that encourages creativity through social events such as roller hockey. This permits one to meet everyone and stay as a team. Organization culture also affects the behaviors of work groups and teams. W ork groups are not necessarily teams a team is a work group that has a personality of its own (Lashinsky Adam) this is when members collaborate and assume an identity of their own as a unit. Google adopted an a structure that came seem confusing to some in matters of control or decision making but it is working very well. It permitted them to meet success an d have less an employee turnover. Reinforcing its emphasis on building a healthy work culture, Google hired Stacy Savides Sullivan as the Chief Culture Officer in 2000.Google has managed to present the combination of a financially successful company offering a highly sought after work environment (Lashinsky & Vogelstein2004). It lays importance on offering a work-life balance by promoting the culture of flexi-timings for Googlers, breaking the norm of fixed mandatory working hours. Owing to this,

Googlers enjoy the flexibility of working from home while also choosing a convenient time to come to work. In addition, facilities including day care centers and medical facilities allow Googlers to balance their professional and personal commitments (Business W eek, 2005).

2.4.

Social Good

A social system is a complex set of human relationships interacting in many ways. W ithin an organization, the social system includes all the people in it and their relationships to each other and to the outside world (Pettigrew, 1979). Google has the informal corporate motto Dont be Evil, which reminds its employees that commitment to be ethical is part and parcel of being a leader at Google. 99% of the employees indicate that, Management is honest and ethical in its business prac tices (Ben Elgin, 2005 ). The standards of conduct that Google employees adhere to concern internal business practices (respecting each other, protecting confidentiality, protecting Googles assets, etc), external relations with customers and partners, and the impact on of Google's work on the larger society (Google Solar Panel Project, 2009 ) . The behavior of one member can have an impact, either directly or indirectly, on the behavior of others. Also, the social system does not have boundaries ; it exchanges goods, ideas, culture with the environment around it.

2.5.

Human Resource Management in Google

HR department at any organization has a unique challenge it has to ensure that the employees are motivated and committed to the organization with complete integrity and honesty. However, at the same time, the HR department has to ensure that the market dynamics are not adversely affected by the sheer volumes of investment involved in the process (Silvester, Anderson, & Patterson, 1999). HR practices at Google ar e named People Operations, which is designed to underline the fact that it is not a mere administrative function, but ensures to build a strong employee- employer relationship. Googles HR practices clearly

reveal the impressive results of the companys a pproach, which help in increasing employee productivity (Josey, 2005). The HR team is made up of general HR business partners, internal consultants, line managers, learning and development, and recruitment teams. They are also specialists in compensation and benefits, but most of the team members work as general HR business partners and internal consultants. Googles Human Resource Practices . Selection and Recruiting

2.6.

Recruitment at Google is the first and foremost step in the overall HR processes. Hiring the right people is a key HR philosophy at Google the median age of employees at Google is 27 years (Mullaney, 2004), making it the youngest workforce across the industry. Google is proud of its centralized recruiting team, comprising of hiring specialists, to fill the companys growing repertoire of job positions. To attract and retain best employees and to pay more attention to them, Google has created the disruptive approach for recruiting. It has developed a recruiting machine to categorize the jobs for the recruitment process (Ellie Levenson, 2003). This contains details of the entire organization, requirements of the organization from the leaders to the entry-level employees. Through its branding, public relations, and recruiting efforts, Google has attracted many professionals from every industry and university. Google takes measures to change the way the employees work so as to attract and retain the best employees (Judy McCarter, 2003). It has successfully implemented the standard best practice tools for recruiting functions ( see Appendix 4) . Known as People Operations, the HR team at Google employs an Applicant Tracking System (ATS), that enables the recruiter to keep an account of the number of resumes posted on Googles W ebsite, s creen them and shortlist candidates for the recruitment process. As the company aspires to work only with great employees, it has put in place a rigorous selection process. Interviewers rank the potential candidates on a

scale of 1 4, with 4 being th e highest. Lynn Fox, Googles spokeswoman said, Our recruiting organization is world - class, and weve been pleased with our ability to scale quickly without sacrificing the quality of our recruits. The shortlisted candidates have to undergo a tough inter view of nearly four rounds. Conducted in an informal conversational style, these interviews evaluate potential hires on their day-to- day problem solving ability instead of focusing on their previous work experience (Baker Loren). Further, Google is famous for the use of mathematical problems while screening candidates (Mills Elinor , 1999). These responses are recorded simultaneously, making the candidate feel valued. Highlighting the same, an employee said, The managers who interviewed me were genuinely interested in me as a person. They were taking notes. One even made a cup of coffee for me ( A Look Inside the Google Talent Machine). The recruitment process, a highly arduous feat, comes to an end only when it is finally approved by Page. Additionally, t he company also evaluates candidates on their Googleyness, ability to work in Googles flat organizational structure and their knack of working in small teams. Valuing intelligence and creativity, Google also pays close attention to the academic record o f applicants instead of their work experience (Fletcher Sarah). To avoid any compromise in their quest for the best talent, Google wholeheartedly funds its recruiting structure, making it a league in itself. W ith a ratio of about 1 recruiter for every 14 employees (1:14), Googles HR has emerged as one of the best - funded recruiting functions among product- based organizations (A Look Inside the Google Talent Machine). Innovations in Googles recruiting process

2.7.

The recruiting team of Google develop ed creative approaches and restructured the recruiting tool to deliver a targeted recruiting message. The new innovation in Googles recruiting function is the data -driven approach to candidate assessment (Lashinsky Adam) . The companys new assessment tool reli es on an algorithm to identify candidates accurately, so as to match or resemble with their existing top performers. The algorithm evaluates the potential success of

the candidates and this innovative function recognizes and resolves the major drawbacks in the assessment methodologies that rely on academic grades, SAT scores, degrees from top schools, prior industry experience and subjective interview results. Google made a significant shift from the traditional approach in terms of recruitment to new innovative approaches that prevented pressure of business losses, lawsuits or trade unions (Mullaney, 2004). The transition from the common intuition approach to a scientific, data-based approach for selecting the candidates has a significant effect on the recruiting team thus attracting more number of new candidates to Google.

2.8.

Compensation Structure

Google stands out as being one of the most sought after and yet one of the most underpaying employers in the industry. However, the HR strategy fits perfectly with the business model and vision at Google where employees are attracted not to the short term monetary returns from work, but rather to the support system that could help them create anything (Josey, 2005). Googles compensation program, also called pay-for- performance , focuses on providing reward for strong performance as well as training for overcoming weaknesses for underperformers. This philosophy of Google was applied to all Google employees, and there was an increase in the proportion of comp ensation in accordance with the levels of leadership and responsibility. Google

emphasized on employee development through on -the-job learning, training through classes conducted by higher officials, frequent departmental meetings and lectures by famous pe rsonnel. Googles motivation mechanisms adopted for employees involve rapid decision-making and an atmosphere that not only encourages ambitious ideas but expects the employees to produce (Schoenberger, 2004) . At Google, employees ideas are taken into con sideration and approved for implementing which enhances employee creativity and boosts employee morale. Additionally, Googlers also fetch good salaries. W hile fresh MBAs are offered salaries between $80,000 and $120,000 per annum,

experienced engineers draw an annual package of $130,000 along with 800

10

options. According to a research conducted by Glassdoor (a career and workplace community) in 2008, software engineers at Google draw an enviable compensation package as compared to their counterparts at Microsoft or Yahoo! (Figure 1) Fig 1 Salary comparison of Googles Software engineers with competitors (in $)

100% 98% 96% Total Compensation 94% 92% 90% 88%

6,871 14,733

4,958

4,75

Bonus 98,771 100,417 84,25

86%
84% 82% 80% Software Engeneer

Salary

97,84

Software Development Engineer

Software Engeneer

Software Engeneer

Source: Apple Engineers Paid Below - Market Salaries, http://news.softpedia.com/newsImage/Apple -Engineers-Paid-Below-Market-Salaries-2.png

Using this blend of salary and perks embedded in an exciting work culture, Google has emerged as an employment brand, differentiating itself from other organizations aiming to hire candidates with similar talents (Sullivan John). So strong is the work culture and employee committed bent upon technology solutions rather than tangible compensation that Google became the first company where the Board of Directors requested for a reduction in their salaries and compensation because they felt they were getting paid more money than they needed. All the employees agreed on the sentiment, and in 2008 09, the

11

employees formally demanded a wage cut themselves. During the same period, the turnover was 1.43% (W illock Rob).

2.9.

70/20/10Rule

Google came up with a formula for it employee to follow to ensure creativity. Employees have to divide their time at w ork into three parts: 70 percent are to be devoted to search and advertising, 20 percent (1 day of the working week) on a project of their choice, and 10 percent to far-out ideas ( Ben Elgin, 2005 ). Googles competitiveness, this strategy has been working w onders for the company. As a result employee has come up with application such as Google Talk, Gmail, and also their San Francisco W I-Fi initiative giving all San Franciscan free Internet ( Business Week, 2005 ). In order to create a learning organization, Google put team member within a few feet of each other. The

result being that everyone shares an office with one or more member of the team. W ith every team member being knowledgeable sitting next to each other, knowledge sharing is a part of life everyda y at Google. And with immediate

access to the entire team, Total Quality Management (Quality and Integrated System) is coordinated within the team. In addition to physical proximity, each Googler e-mails a snippet once a week to his work group describing what he has done in the last week According to Eric Schmidt. W ith the snippet every employee shares the problem and solution that he/she came up with. 2.10. Googles performance via staff performance The success of Googles products and services is mainly bec ause of innovation expected by the company from every employee and 20% time given by the company for the purpose. It is obvious that the HR activities and policies are actually driving Googles corporate business success. To encourage creativity and intera ction among employees, Googles office is designed so as to provide colors, lighting and shared room. Googles HR practices reveal that the companys approach helped in increasing employee productivity. The average Google employee generates more than $1 million in revenue each year

12

(Fletcher Sarah, 2008). This helps Google leverage its workforce productivity, which in turn enhances employee morale. Googles HR policies and work culture are unique and the managers are allowed to try new approaches, to make mistakes and learn from failure. The organizations recruiting function is different from traditional methodology. The companys focus is on reducing recruiting cost and increasing the success of the organization by hiring good performers who have the capability to become top performers (Iyer Bala and Davenport Thomas H, 2008). Google acknowledges that talent management plays a significant role in its success. Google is considered by many personnel as the best place to work mainly because of its fun at wor k and various notable reasons (see Appendix 5).15 Google competitive advantage is of course it employee. Even though Google has created a collegiate atmosphere where employees are allowed to dress casually and have fun at work place, according to managem ent experts from W harton University, All the perks provided by Google mean business . Peter Cappelli, Management Professor and Director of the Center for Human Resources at W harton said, These benefits help companies recruit people who are willing to spe nd almost all of their time at work. Steven E. Gross, a global leader at Mercer Human Resource Consulting, US, said, Google, with its vast array of benefits, is trying to differentiate itself from other companies that want to hire people with the same talents. Googles main aim is to achieve several goals such as attract the best knowledge-workers, help the employees work long hours by feeding them gourmet meals on-site, handling other time-consuming personal chores and to remain as Googlers for a longer period of time. 2.11. Googles Gaps Google is well-known as a great employer and majority of its recognition has come as a result of HR programs and ideas. However there are some gaps in the HR practices of Google.

13

2.13. Critics on hiring process Googles recru iting function is innovative; there is no formal, well-communicated recruitment strategy. Although, nearly every candidate at Google commented on its slow screening, recruiting, and interview process (Michael Ritchie, 2008). Several posts on W hy Google Employees Quit suggest that hiring process in Google is very long, time-consuming and annoying. Current employee of Google (anonyms) My hiring process back in 2007 was, like some of yours, somewhat drawn out, and I was made to contract for almost 4 months before being hired, but Google gave me a chance, and I gave Google a chance. And Im so glad. Logan, former employee of Google posted I experienced the same painful hiring process all of you did. The reputation of Google is why I worked there for three and a half years. I took pride in where I worked and the work I was doing. I knew I could get paid more elsewhere but the caliber of people to my left and right was amazing. I learned a lot and have benefited from the time I spent at Google. There are a lot of similar complains about hiring process and it is true that Google hiring process is time -consuming, both for employees and for Google.

2.14. Disclaimer Google hiring process takes from one to four month and it is inconvenient for applicants, how ever it is necessary from business performance view. In order

to hire new employee management should approve head count; also s taff can only be hired into approved positions. All new positions must pass through the respective budget approvals for each area. Additionally, recruitment at Google is not the sole responsibility of the HR team. The need to hire the right people permeates across the organization, becoming the outlook of every employee, turning Google into a recruiting machine. Currently Goog les head count has more than tripled (Google Hiring like its , 1999), however managers need time for approval of each position in order to make the right decision.

14

2.15. Gaps in Google HR system Google is lacking in its ability to track the on -the-job performance of new hires. The number of temporary and contract employees in the recruiting function at Google is high. The unwillingness to give permanent jobs immediately to recruiters may reduce Googles ability to get experienced recruiters. Googles emphasis on attracting youngsters might hurt its ability to attract more senior and experienced personnel (Vogelstein & Burke, 2004). 2.16. Challenge of growth As Google continues to grow bigger, it faces the continual challenge of being able to handle successfully its open and fun-filled work culture. Kevin W erbach, assistant Professor of Legal Studies and Business Ethics at W harton University said, Google has done a remarkable job in growing from a small, private company to a 15,000-person organization in just a few years, without killing its startup-like innovation culture. But, analysts are concerned that as the company grows, it is difficult for it to provide the same financial and other incentives for its employees. Googles meteoric growth also poses a threat to its intimate team culture and its ability to handle creative conflicts among Googlers. Further, Google struggles to keep its culture away from the shackles of bureaucracy while being able to stimulate its employees. Avoiding organizational lethargy from creeping in while constantly launching new products is also not an easy feat to accomplish. Hornsey believes that overcoming its growing pains is the biggest challenge faced by HR at Google ( Business Week, 2005 ). She added, So many companies have started off very innovative, creative and vibrant, but have then failed and become bureaucratic. Its always a danger when you grow. Highlighting the same, Google's human resources chief has said the runaway success of the fast-growing internet company is generating its own set of people management problems. 2.17. Diversification gap In case of diversification, Google had trouble in recruiting talented locals in its South Asian operations, a board member of Google said ( Business Week, 2005). In particular, the venture c apitalist cited a shortage of web development

15

skills such as knowledge of JavaScript and Ajax (Asynchronous JavaScript and XML), the web design technology used in the latest generation of websites like Google Maps and Flickr. Middle managers also are in sh ort supply. He added, I know firsthand that weve had a bit more of a challenge trying to hire engineers for Google in Bangalore compared to other parts of the world . 2.18. Gap in company nature The nature of work at Google undergoes constant changes, hence f ew employees are able to achieve the task for what they were initially hired. It is also opined that this may hinder the performance management function. Because every hire has been extensively screened and Google believes, All employees have high potential and if someone fails, Google managers take the attitude that theyre to blame, not the employee. Googles unconventional work culture has stirred many debates. A12-hour working day has become a norm at Google, owing to its wide array of employee benefits. Peter Cappelli, management professor at the W harton Business School said, These benefits help companies to recruit people who are willing to spend most all of their time at work ( Business Week, 2005) Further, its recruitment approach, where candidat es grades are preferred over prior work experience has also emerged as a matter of concern. Gross () asserts , Some people would argue that working at Google is more exciting, but Google employees are working incredible hours.

3.

Recommendations and conclusion

Much of the company's success has been based on the fact that they have been more flexible and forward-thinking than its competitors such as Microsoft and Yahoo (Ben Elgin, 2005). Managing growth with the collegiate atmosphere of the company is essential to sustain its success in the future. Google has built a culture where a well-chosen elite accommodates flexibility, shifting roles and, above all else, urgency. As Google grows in size and strength, it is a challenge to maintain the pace of innovation and convey a sense of empowerment to

16

Googles engineers and product managers. There is a risk of the organization losing its dynamism and becoming more bureaucratic. Michael Ritchie (2008) advised, Google should ensure that teams remain relatively sm all so that bureaucratic decision-making does not slow down entrepreneurial minds. Employees should be encouraged to start independent initiatives and they should have the time and resources to pursue new ideas. Google should be careful in balancing business and pleasure activities. Although providing freedom to engineers might attract talent and encourage innovation, but the company should not deviate from its core business strategy which directly affects the revenue (Mullaney, 2004). Additionally, while Googles willingness to launch beta versions of new products at an alarming pace excites engineers, they need to focus on seeing the larger business implications and the risk to the brand.

17

Appendices Appendix 1 Google Inc. Years

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

Events
The founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page met at Stanford University Page and Brin started their partnership. Pagerank was developed BackRub the precursor to the contemporary Google search engine Google was incorporated and moved into its f irst office a garage in Menlo Park California Google moved its headquarters to Palo Alto California and later to Mountain View Google teamed up with Yahoo! for providing Google generated search results. To cater to the global search users, Google was made available in a variety of languages like French, German and Spanish Eric Schmidt was hired as chairman and was later appointed CEO. Google Image Search, a new feature that made millions of photographs and graphic pictures available at the click of a mouse, was added Google achieved financial success and joined hands with AOL. Further, Google bagged a 3 -year deal with Ask Jeeves, its adversary search engine, for $100 million to provide text-based ads Google was made available in 100 languages Google announced its first IPO. Google made its way to its present headquarters, Mountain View. Google tuned its attention towards another lucrative territory, e-mails. Google entered into the social networking forum using Orkut, enabling users to sign up, search and connect with friends Google purchased DoubleClick database of consumers intentions and behavior. Google expanded its global presence by entering Sweden, Brazil, Mexico and China. Google purchased DoubleClic k for $3.2 billion, thwarting Microsofts intentions Google purchased YouTube at $1.65 billion, making it the companys most expensive purchase till date Topped Fortunes list of Best Place to Work Once again voted as the Best Place to Work by Fortune The Google Translator Toolkit, Google SMS, Sky Map for Android, new search features, redesign Google Labs

2001

2002

2003 2004

2005

2006 2007 2008 2009

Completed by the author

18

Source: http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=google&sourceid=opera&ie=utf 8&oe=utf-8

Source: www.google.com

19

Source: http://www.google.com/ig?hl=en

Source: http://www.google.com/intl/en/options/

20

Source: http://www.google.com/intl/en/option s/

21

Appendix 2 Environmental atmosphere in Google

Source: http://www.impactlab.com/2009/03/01/working -for-google-has-its-advantages/

Source: http://www.impactlab.com/2009/03/01/working -for-google-has-its-advantages/

22

Source: http://stre.co.za/uploads/posts/2007/4/12/thumbs/1176406575_google_office_2. jpg

23

Appendix 3 Organic culture Tom Burns and G.M. Stalker (1961) Organic Systems: Organic Organization Form / Management System
Appropriate Conditions Distribution of tasks Nature of Individual task Who (re)defines ta sks Task scope Changing Contributive nature of special knowledge and experience to the common task of the concern The "realistic" nature of the individual task, which is seen as set by the total situation of the concern The adjustment and continual redefinition of individual tasks through interaction with others The shedding of "responsibility" as a limited field of rights, obligations and methods (problems may not be posted upwards, downwards or sideways as being someone else's responsibility) The spread of commitment to the concern beyond any technical definition Network, Presumed Community of Interest

How is task conformance ensured Structure of control, authority and communication Locating of knowledge Communication between members of concern Governance for operations and working behavior Values Prestige

Omniscience no longer imputed to the head of the concern; knowledge about the technical or commercial nature of the here and now may be located anywhere in the network Lateral; i.e., between people of differen t rank, resembling consultation rather than command Information and advice rather than instructions and decisions Commitment to the concern's task and to the "technological ethos" of material progress and expansion is more highly valued than loyalty and obedience Importance and prestige attach to affiliations and expertise valid in the industrial and technical and commercial milieu external to the firm

Source: http://www.valuebasedmanagement.net/methods_burns_mechanistic_organic_systems.html

24

Appendix 4 Standard Recruiting Tools of Google

Employee referral: Googles referral program is without any industry leading features, but the companys strong brand coupled with its highly enthusiastic workforce makes up for weaknesses in the program. Google hires a large number of PhDs on the premise that they enjoy exploring areas that no one else has explored. To accomplish this, they have developed a network of direct relationships with over 350 professors at major schools. In addition, Google has an outstanding internship program that has a very high conversion rate to permanent hires.
Google also effectively uses networking groups like Linkedin and other live professional events to recruit top performers. Google is one of only a handful of companies that requires most newly hired recruiters to go through extensive recruiter training prior to starting. Google uses its own Google search tool to find passive candidates. Because Google is recognized as the master of search, its not surprising that they utilize their own search tool to find top candidates without active resumes. In addition, they attract top performers by placing their own job ads that appear when certain keyword s are typed into a search One of Googles recruiting strategy is the use of a contest to identify and attract top software engineers. The Google Code Jam, as they call it, is a global online software writing contest that can attract over 7,500 people each year. The top 25 finalists are invited to the Mountain View campus to compete for US$50,000 in prizes as well as a chance to work at Google. The contest is powered by TopCoder, a vendor that helps manage the contest and score the winners. The other Googles recruiting is its creative use of roadside billboards and math tests placed in magazines to garner the attention of math and programming wizards. Google has placed brainteaser billboards in the Silicon Valley and by Harvard Square. The math puzzles on these billboards challenge mathematics-oriented people and get them thinking. Although they do not specifically mention Google, the billboard puzzle does eventually lead interested participa nts to the Google site. The final recruiting tool is the friends of Google system. This tool creates an electronic email network of people that are interested in Google and its products but not necessarily interested in working for t he company. By signing up these individuals and then periodically sending them emails about the firms products and events, Google can build a relationship with thousands of people that like the firm.

College recruitment:

Professional networking:

Recruiter training:

AdWords as a recruiting tool:

Contests as recruiting tools:

Brain-teasers as recruiting tools:

Friends of Google:

Source: Sullivan John, A look inside the Google talent machine, http://www.humanresourcesmagazine.com.au/articles/B1/0C0429B1.asp?Type=60&Category=1223

25

Appendix 5 Reasons to Work at Google

Top 10 Reasons to W ork at Google Lend a helping hand. With millions of vi sitors every month, Googl e has become an essenti al part of everyday life - li ke a good friend - connecting peopl e with the inform ation they need to live great lives. Life is beautiful. Bei ng a part of som ethi ng that matters and w orking on products in w hi ch you can believe i s rem arkably fulfilling. Appreciation is the best motivation so w e've created a fun and inspiring w orkspace you'll be glad to be a part of, incl uding on-site doctor and denti st; m assage and yoga; professi onal developm ent opportunities; on-site day care; shoreline running trail s; and pl enty of snacks to get you through the day. Work and play are not mutually exclusive. It i s possibl e to code and pass the puck at the sam e time. We love our employees, and we want them to know it. Google offers a vari ety of benefits, incl uding a choi ce of m edical program s, company -m atched 401(k), stock options, m aternity and paternity leave, and much m ore. Innovation is our bloodline. Even the best technology can be improved. We see endl ess opportunity to create even m ore relevant, more useful, and faster products for our users. Googl e i s the technol ogy l eader in organizing the worlds inform ati on. Good company everywhere you look. Googlers range from former neurosurgeons, CEOs, and U.S. puzzl e champions to alligator w restl ers and form er -Marines. No matter w hat thei r backgrounds Googl ers m ake for i nteresting cube m ates. Uniting the world, one user at a time. P eopl e in every country and every l anguage use our products. As such w e think, act, and w ork gl obally - j ust our littl e contribution to maki ng the world a better pl ace. Boldly go where no one has gone before. There are hundreds of chall enges yet to solve. Y our creative ideas m atter here and are worth exploring. You'll have the opportunity to develop innovative new products that millions of peopl e will find useful . There is such a thing as a free lunch after all. In fact w e have them every day: healthy, yummy, and m ade with love.

Sourc e: Top 10 Reasons to Work at Google, http://www.google.com/support/jobs/bin/static.py?page=about.html&about=top10

26

References
A Look Inside the Google Talent Ma chine [online] Available at http://www.humanresourcesmagazine.com.au/articles/B1/0C0429B1.asp?Type=60&Category=1 223 [accessed 27 February 2010] Baker Loren, Google Receives 1,000,000 Job Applications a Year [online] Available at http://www.searchenginejournal.com/google-receives-1000000-job-applications-a-year/4308/ [accessed 2 March 2010] Barney J.B. (2002), Gaining And Sustaining Competitive Advantage , Prentice Hall, 2nd Edition. Benefits, Google Inc [online] Available at http://www.google.com.au/support/jobs/bin/static.py?page=benefits.html [accessed 1 March 2010] Ben Elgin, Managing Google's Idea Factory, Business Week 3rd October 2005 Issue 3953, p88-90 Best global brands for 2008 [online] Available at http://www.interbrand.com/best_global_brands.aspx [Accessed 22 February 2010] Blodget, Henry. On Google, bubbles, and market madness, Fortune (Europe) , 27th June 2005, Vol. 151 Issue 11, p67 -70 Brockner, J., & Guare, J. (1983). Improving the performance of low self esteem individuals: An attributional approach. Academy of Management Journal, 26 (4), 642 -656.

Caldwell, D. E, Chatman, J. A., & O'Reilly, C. A. (1990). Building organizational commitment: A multifirm study. Journal of Occupational Psychology , 63, 245-261.

Casey,

C.

(1999).

"Come,

join

our

family":

Discipline

and

integration

in

corporate

organizational culture. Human Relations, 52, 152 -175.

Deal, T. & Kennedy, A. (1982). Corporate cultures . Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Deci, E. L. (1972). The effects of contingent and non -contingent reward and controls on intrinsic motivation. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance , 8, 217-229. Elgin, Ben Googles Leap May Slow Rivals Growth , Business Week , 18th July 2005 Issue 3943, p45-45

27

Elgin, Ben and Hesseldahl, Arik. Googles Grand Ambitions Business Week , 5th September 2005 Issue 3949, p36-37 Ellie Levenson, Don't trust me, google me! New Statesman, 25th August 2003, Vol. 132, Issue 4652, p-15 Fletcher Sarah, Google: Recruiting and Developing Top Talent [online] Available at http://www.trainingzone.co.uk/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=164515 [accessed 1 March 2010]

Forehand, G. A. & von Gilmer, B. (1964). Environmental variations in studies of organizational behavior. Psychological Bulletin , 62, 361-382.

Getting Into Google [online] Available at http://www.google.com/support/jobs/bin/static.py?page=gettingintogoogle.html [accessed 15 February 2010] Google, Inc. Company history [online] Available at http://www.fundinguniverse.com/companyhistories/Google-Inc-Company-History.html [accessed 1 March 2010] Google Market Share Up [online] Available at http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2007/05/google -market-share-up-again.html [accessed 26 February 2010]

Google Promises Richer Employee Benefits as the Company Goes Public [online] Available at http://www.workforce.com/section/00/article/23/71/18.html [accessed 01 March 2010] Google: Take Two [online] Available at http://www.greatplacetowork.com/best/100best2008 google.php [accessed 3 March 2010] Haircuts Just One of Googles Employee Perks [online] Available at http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2007 -05-10-google-perks_N.htm [accessed 25 February 2010] Hardy Quentin, Google Thinks Small [online] Available at http://www.forbes.com/global/2005/1114/054A.html [accessed 23 February 2010] Iyer Bala and Davenport Thomas H., Reverse Engineering Googles Innovation Machine, Harvard Business Review , April 2008 Judy McCarter, Make Google Your Business Partner, National Public Accountant, August 2003, p-21.

28

Kirkpatrick, David. Googles Crafty Star Search, Business week , 12th September 2005 Issue 3950, p16-16, 1/3p; Lashinsky Adam, Life Inside Google [online] Available at http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2007/fortune/0701/gallery.Google_l ife/8.html [accessed 26 February 2010] Lashinsky, Adam and Vogelstein, Fred. Is Google really worth it ? Fortune (Europe) , 15th November 2004, Vol. 150 Issue 9, p99 -99, Lewis, Peter. Has Google Built a Microsoft Killer, Fortune (Europe) , 13th December 2004, Vol. 150 Issue 11, p53-53 Managing Google's Idea Factory, Business Week , 3rd October 2005 Issue 3953,p88-90

Michael

Ritchie,

Ph.D.,

is

assistant

professor

of

management,

School

of

Business

Administration, University of South Carolina Aiken, Aik en, SC 29801 (2008). Culture traits, strength, and organizational performance: Moving beyond "strong" culture. Academy of Management Review , 13 (4), 546-558. Mills Elinor, Google Hiring like its 1999 [online] Available at http://news.cnet.com/Google-

hiring-like-its-1999/2100-1025_3-5924424.html [accessed 2 March 2010] Mullaney, Timothy J. A Gaggle of Reasons to Love Google, Business Week, August 2004, Vol. 150 Issue 8, p57-58 Penenberg Adam L., Has Google Peaked?, [online] Available at http://www.slate.com/id/2127758/ [accessed 2 March 2010] Perk Place: The Benefits Offered by Google and Others May Be Grand, But Theyre All B usiness [online] Available at http://wharton.universia.net/index.cfm?fa=viewArticle&id=1319&language [accessed 26 February 2010] Peters, T , 4 Waterman, R. (1982). In search of excellence. New York: Harper & Row.

Pettigrew, A.M. (1979). On studying organizational cultures. Administrative Science Quarterly , 24, 570-581. Josey. How Google Searches For Talent, Business week , 11 th April 2005 Issue 3928, p52-52.

29

Quentin Hardy, Google Thinks Small, Forbes 14th November 2005, Vol. 176 Issue 10, p198-202.

Ravlin, E. C., & Meglino, B. M. (1987). Issues in work values measurement . In W. C. Frederick (Ed.), Research in corporate social performance and policy (9 1 ed.), (153-183). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, Inc.

Schein, E. H. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco: jossey -Bass.

Schein, E. H. (1990). Organizational culture. American Psychologist , 43 (2), 109-119.

Schoenberger, Chana R. Out of Context, Forbes 29th November 2004, Vol. 174 Issue 11, p64-68 Scott, W. (1969). Structure of natural cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 12 (4), 261-278. Shamir, B., Houwse, R, j., F& Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational e ffects of charismatic leadership. Organizational Science , 4, 577-594. Siehl, C. & Martin, J. (1998), Measuring Organizational Culture Silvester, J., Anderson, N. R., & Patterson, F (1999). Organizational culture change: An inter group attributional analysis. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology , 92, 1-22.

Sim, H. P., Szilagyi, A. D., Ed McKemey, D. R. (1976). Antecedents of work -related expectancies. Academy of Management journal , 19, 547-559.

Stasser, G., & Stewart, D. (1992). Disco very of hidden profiles by decision-making groups: Solving a problem versus making a judgment journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 63, 426-434. Steven Levy, Brad Stone, Peter Suciu, All Eyes on Google, (cover story) Newsweek, 29th March 2004, Vol. 143, Issue 13, p -48.

Strategic Analysis of Google [online] Available at http://www.slideshare.net/joshs633/strategic analysis-google [accessed 16 February 2010] Sullivan John, Google Continues to Innovate in Recruiting and Candidate Assessment [online] Available at

30

http://www.ere.net/articles/db/95872408130C40EC8AD8B3FF0975D145.asp [accessed 27 February 2010]

Tom Burns and G.M. Stalker (1961) Organic Systems [online] Available at http://www.valuebasedmanagement.net/methods_burns_mechanistic_organic_s ystems.html [accessed 2 March 2010] Top 10 Reasons to Work at Google [online] Available at http://www.google.com/support/jobs/bin/static.py?page=about.html&about=t op10 [accessed 27 February 2010]

Triandis, C. H. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Vogelstein, Fred and Burke, Doris. Google @ $165 Fortune (Europe) , 13th December 2004, Vol. 150 Issue 11, p44 -53. Vogelstein, Fred & Lashinsky, Adam. At Google, Beware the IPO Aftermath Fortune 17th May 2004, Vol. 149 Issue 10, p32 -34. Vogelstein, Fred & Mero, Jenny. Can Google Grow Up? Fortune , 8th December 2003, Vol. 148 Issue 12, p38-43, 6p. Wagner, J. A. (1995). Studies of individualism-collectivism: Effects on cooperation in groups. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 152 -172. Why Google Employees Quit [online] Available at http://techcrunch.com/2009/01/18/whygoogle-employees-quit/ [accessed 25 February 2010]

Why is Google So Great [online] Available at http://resources.greatplacetowork.com/article/pdf/why_google_ is_no._1.pdf [accessed 25 February 2010] Willock Rob, Google Makes the Mind Boggle with its Recruitment Challenges [online] Available at http://www.personneltoday.com/articles/2007/02/07/39139/google -makes-themind-boggle-withits-recruitment-challenges.html [accessed 2 March 2010]

100 Best Companies to Work For [online] Available at http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/bestcompanies/2008/jobgrowth/ [accessed 2 March 2010]

31