asian journal of management research › ajmrvol1no1 › volfive › eijmrs5209.pdf · strived on...

ASIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT RESEARCH Online Open Access publishing platform for Management Research

© Copyright by the authors - Licensee IPA- Under Creative Commons license 3.0

Review Article ISSN 2229 – 3795

ASIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT RESEARCH 281 Volume 5 Issue 3, 2014

Management Protocols at Google Incorporation Noman Ali, Farhan Ali

La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia [email protected]

ABSTRACT

Management practices in an organization form an integral part of its road map towards success and profitability in the industry. Google, for its part has been "Search Engine" giant in this era of globalization still maintaining its competitiveness with the increasing advancements of time and technology. This paper studies and analyzed the key areas of management practices employed at Google that has helped it to maintain its dominance in the technological industry. The continuous entrepreneurial ventures, a strongly satisfied human resource, global presence and unmatched technology along with proper strategic management, all have discussed and analyzed to understand the management protocols that an organization needs to employ in order to cope with changing challenges of the modern times. Keywords: Globalization, organizational behavior, entrepreneurship, human resources, technology, strategic management 1. Introduction

Google Inc., has emerged as global phenomenon of online search portal founded in 1998, by two college colleagues. Since then, Google has stepped into various other dimensions succeeding in all undertakings and ventures. This portion would entail the background and introduction of the company which would be followed by sustainability measures at Google and the scheme of this article. 1.2 Background

Google was formed by two Ph.D. students, Larry Page and Sergey Brin in 1998, as an extension to the old linkage system of individual web pages that was created by the two friends, termed as “Back Rub” (Google, 2004).The founders of Google designed a web-crawler interface that scan through various web portals for updated information linked to servers across the globe that includes freebase, world fact book and Wikipedia (Emerald Publishing Group, 2014). 1.2 Google incorporation

Google embarked on road to success capitalizing on the need of the times and bringing in new innovations and products on customers desktop just when they need it. Google has strived on skills and knowledge of smart and determined people instead of raw geniuses that has enabled them to become a global leader in search engine portal having a time rate capacity of bringing in more than 1000 closest search results within a matter .24 seconds (Google, 2004).Since its inception and acknowledgment, Google has now become the foremost choice of internet users across globe to gather information (Menou, 2010).

Management protocols at Google incorporation

Noman Ali,Farhan Ali

ASIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT RESEARCH Volume 5 Issue 3, 2014

282

According to Forbes (2014), Google is currently ranked number 52 in Global Top 2000 companies having a market share of 67% as of July 2013, as illustrated in figure 1.

Figure 1: Market Share of search engines, sourced from comscore.com

Though disputes exist over market share of Google with researches claiming it to have around 80%, Google has become top priority in sourcing information, online. 1.3 Sustainability practices by Google, “Google green”

Sustainability is about the efficient and effective management of natural resources utilized by a firm for its operations (Madu and Kuei, 2012). Given the fact the today, phenomenon like sustainable management of resources for collective benefit of society, corporation and environment are being upheld under “Shared Value approach” (Porter and Kramer, 2011), only those organizations have been successful who have adapted to the change of organization’s operations and have accounted for sustainability and shared value creation. Much like other global giants such as Nestle (Kruschwitz, 2013) and Nike (Epstein et al., 2010), Google has also taken initiatives in embarking its operations towards sustainability in its management and operations, under the banner “Google Green”. For instance, Google entered into agreement with their Iowa utility partners to provide 407 megawatts of wind energy to Google data sites and with SunPower Corporation, to provide residential rooftop solar facilities of worth $250 million (Official Google Blog, 2014), alongside using 34% of renewable energy to support its operations as illustrated in figure 2. 2. Scheme of the article

This chapter would follow an in depth analysis of management structures in Google, identifying the various competencies that Google holds in different management concerns such organizational behavior, human resource practices, entrepreneurship and strategic management practices of Google, that has made it a global success in such short time frame. After analyzing Google in terms of its management prospects, this article would entail an




283

overall conclusion of Google incorporation outlining various competent patterns and giving recommendations on areas of weak management structure.

Figure 2: Sustainable practices at Google, sourced from Google green images

3. Management protocols analysis at Google

This chapter would give an insight into management protocols at Google, highlighting the important competencies that Google enjoys and those which have enabled it to lead the online search industry alongside all other technological, innovative and entrepreneurial ventures undertaken by Google. From thereon, an insight of the strategies used by Google would be highlighted so as to understand their strategic management practices. 3.1 Organizational behavior at Google

With the immense insight coming into positive psychology, researches and studies have tried to unveil the best protocols possible for aligning an individual’s psychology in a way that benefits not only the individual but adds to the positive organizational behavior (Van Dyne et al., 1994; Brief and Weiss, 2002; Compton, 2005; Luthans et al., 2006; Peterson, 2006). According to Scholars (Kreitner and Kinicki, 2008), organizational behavior is about understanding and improving the attitudes and behaviors of different teams and individuals in an organization. In today’s environment simply attaining sustainable edge through entry barriers or competitive edge through overcoming weaknesses won’t get the job done but it necessitates more than high performance by bending or breaking the rules and using appreciative intelligence (Luthans and Youssef, 2007; Verma and Pathak, 2011). Google, realizing the need of the hour in order to stay competitive has bend its organizational rules and structure so as to facilitate the growth of individuals and the teams working in its different units. Terming their employees with more informal yet attractive and creative title




284

“Googlers”, Google have always upheld their employees with position seldom winning an arguments portrayed from the company’s operations and marketing, following an unusual informal office and sites setups, aimed at encouraging employees to think freely which is believed by Google to bring out the best from an employee’s ability, knowledge and skills (Google, 2004; Finkle, 2012; NewsRX, 2013). Figure 3 represents the Google organizational structure and behavior approach that has helped them be competitive leaders of their industry.

Figure 3: Organizational behavior model at Google, sourced from Google images

3.2 Human resource protocols at Google

As the importance of other organizational factors that contribute to the performance and existence of the firms has increased, more light has been shed on the importance of the man power and human factors of the management paradigm that enables an organization to achieve its objectives and goals, effectively and efficiently. The way an organization undertakes its human resources protocols as an important execution factor in its strategy defines the worth and effectiveness of an organization (Koch and McGrath, 1996). To many scholars, the key assumption to effective performance in an organization is, its human resources (Dobre, 2012). Studies have revealed that motivating organizational structure, good performance appraisals and care for employees overall well-being, add to the organizational performance inform of productivity, trust and commitment with the organization (Delaney and Huselid, 1996; Harrell-Cook, 2001). Realizing the importance of its human assets, Google comprising of employees from various ethnic and cultural backgrounds, follows an organizational setup in which all employees regardless of their work level are hands-on contributors having frequent interactions with all




285

executives and both co-founders, regarding various organizational process and operations, thus keeping their employees motivated and positive with regards to their performance and value in the organization (Google, 2004). Following a data driven approach and terming their employees as family, Google strives on following approach towards their Human resource practices as illustrated in figure 4.

Figure 4: Human resources at Google, sourced from people’s operations at Google

It’s the human resources protocols at Google that has placed it at number 8 in ranking of World’s Best Companies to Work for, surpassing the likes of Apple, Samsung and Yahoo etc (Forbes, 2014). 3.3 Globalization at Google

Globalization has become an important perspective in modern day whether be that business operations or education etc., as entities or businesses going global are enjoying more success in comparison to the ones’ that are operating just locally perfectly implying the relationships between their diverse workforce (Ferner and Quintanilla, 2002; Meyer, 2012). Businesses like Nestle etc. have all expanded their operations beyond their home country domain and thus are able to make the most of their opportunities by simply thinking locally and acting

globally, which has resulted in 98% sales of Nestle in Switzerland, brought by 96% of overseas employees (Stulz, 1995). Globalization follows the following route of development as illustrated in figure 5, which if executed to perfection can bring up positive outcomes for the business. Much like other leading companies, Google has also expanded its operations beyond the domain of its home country and operates from 70 offices scattered around 40 countries of world, with all offices providing a different experience of company’s operations and organizational environment apart from the main synchronized site localities such as Google cubes, micro kitchens and cafes (Google, 2004). Capitalizing on the diverse work force that is entailed by Google, it responds to such globally diversifying employee pool by inducing the feeling of “Being You” among its employees and making them feel at home using Google network which helps employees interact with and know about what fellow Googlers are doing using globalized community networks such as Hispanic Googlers Network and Google Veterans (Networks and Diversity at Google, 2010). 3.4 Technology “pride of Google”

Technology, with its consistent advancement has brought a new wave of management perspectives in the corporate world helping people and organizations to stay connected across globe, sharing views and ideas at their ease (Croteau and Bergeron, 2001). Contribution of information technology to management and organizational performance has become the




286

center of attraction for many years now, with every research enlightening new route to organizational success by use of technology (Melville et al., 2004). According to various studies, integrating information technology with strategic management perspective an organization combined with its resources, would yield better efficient and effective outcomes adding to the organizational performance and its competitive advantage (Bharadwaj, 2000; Spanos and Lioukas, 2001; Rivard et al., 2006).

Figure 5: Globalization process, self developed by author

Since Google’s entire presence is based on technology, it is only imperative that Google be at the top of their technological operations, particularly in their main service area of serving as search engine. For this purpose, Google uses a system of ranking webpages in order of their authenticity and relevance to the query coded in bringing out the best possible solutions through PigeonRankTM, software developed by founders of Google to support their technological service (Google, 2002) illustrated in figure 6. In its continuous efforts to make its consumers feel welcome on its search engines, Google has taken up various acquisitions and mergers to add to its competitiveness in market. For example, to cope with the technological advancement, Google bought Android technology to facilitate consumers using Google on their cell phones (Business Week, 2005)which also helped Google to introduce its own brand of smartphones, Google Nexus and bought YouTube and On2 Technologies, to facilitate video streaming by Google users (Monica, 2006; Yarrow, 2010) 4. Entrepreneurship and innovation at Google




287

Since their acknowledgement, entrepreneurship and innovation have greatly reformed the management world, redefining the strategies and organizational processes to attain efficiency via the use of technology or through simple creativeness. Entrepreneurship is defined is undertaking a venture by accounting for all resources, risks and rewards associated with it (Drucker, 1987; Samson and Daft, 2012). In the due course of emergence of the phenomenon, various studies have defined characteristics of an entrepreneur (Carland et al., 1984) illustrated in figure 7.

Figure 6: Google technology “PigeonRank”, sourced from Google images




288

Figure 7: Characteristics of entrepreneur, self developed by author

Although many people use entrepreneurship and innovation interchangeably but scholars and studies have revealed that innovation is actually an integral part of entrepreneurship (Shane, 2012).According to researches, an entrepreneur are motivated and/or demotivated by the fact that how well their organization or employer caters for their needs and provides them with an environment to foster their talent along with the economic environment and basic necessities provided to an employee (North, 2010; Sahut and Persis-Ortiz, 2014). Companies developing new technological platforms are inclined to have strategize entrepreneurship and innovation in their organizational culture that could well harness the talent from within its employees to open doors to new markets or derive new ways to serve existing markets but however he case may be, it is very important for technological firms to have entrepreneurship as evident part of their organizational structure and strategies (Chesbrough and Rosenbloom, 2002; Chesbrough, 2006; Johnson and Christensen, 2008; Onetti et al., 2012). Adhering to the same notion, both in its human aspect and the technological aspect, Google fosters an environment of openness and greatly welcomes feedback or new ideas from their employees. The infrastructure and culture at all sites of Google enable Googlers to think freely and openly on any think they can off, besides which Googlers during their working hours are given on hour to stop thinking about subject matter at hand and think about any improvements or enrichment of an ongoing product or service or a new idea, all of which have contributed to Google’s excellence in the industry making it the 47th most innovative firm around the globe (Steiber and Alänge, 2013). Basing on the flat management structure and defining role of managers as to connect and guide for innovation instead of control, Google has managed to pull of several successful innovative ventures from within like Hangouts, Doodles and Google Docs, Driverless Electronic Cars etc(Google, 2005; Savoia and Copeland, 2011; Padden, 2013). 4.1 Strategic management protocols at Google

Much like other aspects of an organization’s tools to success, a key role is determined by how well the organization has formulated and undertaken the management of its strategic goals and objectives. By definition, strategic management is composed of those actions and decisions that are formulated and implemented to give the organization a superior competitive fit in achieving its goals and objectives, with regards to its environment (Brakcer, 1980; Porter, 1981; Priem et al., 2012). Strategic Management of an organization is revisited from time to time so as to keep it fit with the organizational progress and is undertaken for three purposes(Samson and Daft, 2012) illustrated in figure 8.




289

Figure 8: Purpose of strategic management, self developed by author

Google, for its part, realizing the ever changing business environment and the need to think strategically in order to not only survive but make most of the resources available at hand, has too much extent exploited its core competencies such innovativeness and creativeness of its employees as part of its main corporate level strategy of diversification, synergizing the concepts among all its departments to give the best possible value to its customers in form of fastest search engine and access to secure web browsing in form of Google Chrome and driverless electronic cars among others, all of which, strengthened Google as a dominant player of the industry (Finkle, 2012). For their business levels, the key strategy at Google was the differentiation strategy that enabled them to feature well against their competitors, enabling its customers to view their desired results in several different languages and often linking scholarly inputs to the best possible academic resources through Google Scholar and Google books etc (Google, 2004) and their globalization strategy that has enabled them to tap various markets by employing local manpower and resources alongside sustainable and socially responsible ventures as well as by associating Google with the native region such as Google Australia etc as illustrated in figure 9.

Figure 9: Localization by Google: Google China and Google Brazil, sourced from Google The strategy adapted by Google, with regards to its human resource management, is the best example of its business level strategies as Googlers not only enjoy their stay at the company but their feedback and concerns are highly valued which has made Google the one of the top 10 firms to work for in 2014 and firm to look out for in coming years for its competent pool of Googlers (FORBES, 2014).




290

Google constantly evaluates its environment; formulating and executing necessary changes where needed and utilizing its best strategies mentioned above, Google has been able to overcome most of the obstacles that posed a threat to its operations. Another key aspect of Google’s success is their ability to shake hands with suitable firms at right time to take competitive advantage by the use of merger and acquisition strategy which has enabled them to be global leaders in online video portal such as YouTube and enabled them to be operating system providers for long range of smartphone firms such Samsung, LG, Sony etc, and thus is able to stand out of the crowd in its industry with competitors still unable to cope with the extensive continuous growth of Google. So in order to stay competitive and stay ahead in their industry, Google needs to remain focused yet bring needed adjustments in the following strategic dimensions;

1. Diversification Strategy (Corporate Level)

2. Differentiation and Globalization Strategies (Business Level)

3. Human Resource Strategy (Functional Level)

Figure 10: BCG matrix analysis of Google. Self-developed by author

Table 1: summarizes the SWOT analysis of Google based on the analysis carried out on the organization.

Positives Negatives

Inte

rna

l

Strengths:

• Search Engine Competitiveness

• Quality and Customer value as Prime Focus

• Financial Position

• Access to large consumer base

• Patents holdings

• Innovative Culture

• Employee Satisfaction

• Product Integration

• Strong Strategic Management

Weaknesses:

• Major Reliance on Search Engine domain for Profits

• Patents Litigations

Ex

tern

al Opportunities:

• Mobile Internet Users

• Driverless Electronic Cars

• Acquisitions and Mergers

Threats:

• Microsoft as Competitor

• Cyber Scams and Cyber Laws




291

• Electronic Industry Entry

5. Conclusion

Google is one the foremost competitive yet intriguing technological firm that has evolved greatly with time and has adjusted itself well to cope with ever changing dimensions of the modern day corporate world. Google’s key to success is the flat hierarchical structure that prevails all across the organization allowing all employees to be open in criticism and/or feedback upon various ventures and process. Their continuous strive and success in making employees free and open about their work and passions has added to the entrepreneurial and innovation undertaken by Google and has helped it to grow from within, as a formidable organization. The diversification, globalization, differentiation, human resources and mergers strategy has worked well for Google as these have enabled Google to enter into other business dimensions and successfully add to their operations and organizational productivity, which is why it is also recommended that these strategies be used on in future as well with timely revisits so to up keep with the changing business dynamics and stay atop its game as a global leader in the era of technology. 6. References

1. Bharadwaj, A.S., (2000), A Resource-Based Perspective on Information Technology Capability and Firm Performance: An Empirical Investigation. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 24(1), pp169 - 196.

2. Brakcer, J., (1980), The Historical Development of Strategic Management Concept.

Academy of Management, 5(2), pp219-24.

3. Brief, A.P. and Weiss, H.M., (2002) Organizational behavior: Affect in the workplace. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, pp 279-307.

4. Carland, J.W., Hoy, F. and Boultan, W.R., (1984), Differentiating entrepreneurs from

small business owners: A conceptualization. Academy of Management, 9(2), pp354-59.

5. Chesbrough, H. and Rosenbloom, R.S., (2002), The role of the business model in

capturing value from innovation: evidence from Xerox Corporation's technology spin-off companies. Industrial and Corporate Change, 11(3), pp529-55.

6. Croteau, A.-M. and Bergeron, F., (2001), An information technology trilogy: business

strategy, technological deployment and organizational performance. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 10(2), pp77-99.

7. Delaney, J.T. and Huselid, M.A., (1996), The Impact of Human Resource

Management Practices on Perceptions of Organizational Performance. Academy of Management Journal, 39(4), pp 949 - 969.




292

8. Dobre, O.I., (2012), The impact of Human Resource Management on Organizational

Performance. Management Research and Practice, 4(4), pp37-46.

9. Drucker, P.F., (1987), Innovation and Entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Review, 12(1), pp172-75.

10. Emerald Publishing Group, (2014), The Google Knowledge Graph: Information gatekeeper or a force to be reckoned with? Strategic Direction, 13(4), pp15-17.

11. Epstein, M.J., Buhovac, A.R. and Yuthas, K., (2010), Why Nike kicks butt in

Sustainability. Organizational Dynamics, 39(4), pp353-56.

12. Ferner, A. and Quintanilla, J., (2002), Between Globalization and Capitalist Variety: Multinationals and the International Diffusion of Employment Relations. European Journal of Industrial Relations, 8(3), pp243-50.

13. Finkle, T.A., (2012), Corporate Entrepreneurship and Innovation in Silicon Valley:

The Case of Google, Inc. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(4), pp863 - 884.

14. Harrell-Cook, G., (2001), Manufacturing Advantage: Why High-Performance Work Systems Pay off. Academy of Management, 26(3), pp459 - 462.

15. Johnson, M.W. and Christensen, C.M., (2008), Reinventing your business model.

Harvard Business Review, 86(12), pp51-59.

16. Koch, M.J. and McGrath, R.G., (1996), Improving Labor Productivity: Human Resource Management Policies do Matter. Strategic Management Journal, 17(5), pp335-354.

17. Kruschwitz, N., (2013), Creating Shared Value At Nestle. MIT Sloan Management

Review, 55(1), pp1-6.

18. Luthans, F. et al., (2006), Psychological Capital Development: Toward a Micro-Intervention. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(3), pp 387-393.

19. Luthans, F. and Youssef, C.M., (2007), Emerging Positive Organizational Behavior.

Journal of Management, 33(3), pp 321-49.

20. Melville, N., Kraemer, K. and Gurbaxani, V., (2004), Information Technology and Organizational Performance: An Integrative Model of IT Business Value. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 28(2), pp283-322.

21. Menou, M.J., (2010), Information behaviour of the “Google generation” as a factor in

sustainability for Mexican cities. Aslib Proceedings: New Information Perspectives, 62(2), pp165-174.

22. Meyer, A.D., (2012), Reflections on the globalization of management education.

Journal of Management Development, 31(4), pp336-345.




293

23. NewsRX, (2013), Management Research; Reports from Google Provide New Insights into Management Research. Investment News Weekly, p.657.

24. Onetti, A., Zucchella, A., Jones, M.V. and McDougall-Covin, P.P., (2012),

Internationalization, innovation and entrepreneurship: business models for new technology-based firms. Journal of Management and Governance, 16(3), pp337-68.

25. Porter, M., (1981), The Contributions of Industrial Orgainzations to Strategic

Management. Academy of Management, 6(4), pp609-20.

26. Porter, M.E. and Kramer, M.R., (2011), Creating Shared Value: How to Reinvent Capitalism and unleash a wave of Innovation and Growth. Harvard Business Review, 89(1-2), pp62-78.

27. Priem, R.L., Li, S. and Carr, C.J., (2012), Insights and New Directions from Demand-

Side Approaches to Technology Innovation, Entrepreneurship, and Strategic Management Research. Journal Of Management, 38(1), pp346-74.

28. Rivard, S., Raymond, L. and Verreault, D., (2006), Resource-based view and

competitive strategy: An integrated model of the contribution of information technology to firm performance. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 15(1), pp29-50.

29. Sahut, J.M. and Persis-Ortiz, M., (2014), Small business, Innovation, and

Entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 42(4), pp663-68.

30. Savoia, A. and Copeland, P., (2011), Entrepreneurial Innovation at Google. Computer, 44(4), pp 56-61.

31. Shane, S., 2012. Reflections on the (2010), AMR Decade Award: Delivering on the

Promise of Entrepreneurship As a Field of Research. Academy of Management Review, 37(1), pp 10-20.

32. Spanos, Y.E. and Lioukas, S., (2001), An Examination into the Causal Logic of Rent

Generation: Contrasting Porter's Competitive Strategy Framework and the Resource-Based Perspective. Strategic Management Journal, 22(10), pp 907-34.

33. Steiber, A. and Alänge, S., (2013), A corporate system for continuous innovation: the

case of Google Inc. European Journal of Innovation Management, 16(2), pp 243-64.

34. Stulz, R.M., (1995), The Cost of Capital in Internationally Integrated Markets: The Case of Nestle. Eurepean Financial Management, 1(1), pp 11-22.

35. Van Dyne, L., Graham, J.W. and Dienesch, R.M., (1994), Organizational citizenship

behavior: Construct redefinition, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 37(4), pp765 - 802.

36. Verma, N. and Pathak, A.A., (2011), Using Appreciative Intelligence for ice-

breaking. Journal of Workplace Learning, 23(4), pp 276-285.




294

37. Business Week, (2005), Google Buys Android for Its Mobile Arsenal. (Online) Available at: http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2005-08-16/google-buys-android-for-its-mobile-rsenal (Accessed 30 May 2014).

38. Chesbrough, H.W., (2006), Open business models: how to thrive in the new

innovation landscape. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

39. Compton, W.C., (2005), Introduction to positive psychology. Belmont: Thomson/Wadsworth.

40. Designing for simplicity: How Noah improved Google Search for iOS. (2011),

(Online Video) Directed by Google. United States of America: Google Entrepreneurs.

41. FORBES, (2014), Companies; Google. (Online) Available at: http://www.forbes.com/companies/google/, accessed 29 May 2014.

42. Forbes, (2014), The 10 best companies to work for in 2014. (Online) Available at:

http://www.forbes.com/pictures/efkk45ffdhl/no-8-google-3/, accessed 29 May 2014.

43. Google, (2002), Google Technology. (Online) Available at: http://www.google.com.au/technology/pigeonrank.html , accessed 30 May 2014.

44. Google, (2004), About: Company. (Online) Available at:

https://www.google.com/about/company/ , accessed 30 May 2014.

45. Google, (2004), Company; Culture. (Online) Available at: http://www.google.com.au/about/company/facts/culture/ , accessed 30 May 2014.

46. Google, (2004), Google Locations. (Online) Available at:

http://www.google.com.au/about/company/facts/locations/ , accessed 30 May 2014.

47. Google, (2005), Google Entrepreneurs. (Online) Available at: http://www.google.com/entrepreneurs/initiatives/ , accessed 30 May 2014.

48. Kreitner, R. and Kinicki, A., (2008), Organizational Behavior. 8th ed. Boston:

McGraww-Hill.

49. Madu, C.N. and Kuei, C.-H., (2012), Handbook of Sustainability Management. World Scientific Publishing Company.

50. Monica, P.R.L., (2006), Google to buy YouTube for $1.65 billion. (Online) Available

at:http://money.cnn.com/2006/10/09/technology/googleyoutube_deal/index.htm?cnn=yes , accessed 30 May 2014.

51. Networks and Diversity at Google, (2010), (Online) Directed by Google. United

States of America: Google.

52. North, D.C., (2010), Understanding the process of economic change. Princeton University Press.




295

53. Official Google Blog, (2014), Google Green Blog. (Online) Google Green Available

at: http://googlegreenblog.blogspot.com.au/2014/04/going-solar-with-sunpower.html , accessed 30 May 2014.

54. Padden, B., (2013), Google 'Doodles' Reflect Company's Culture of Innovation.

Documentary Report. Voice of America.

55. Peterson, C., (2006), A Primer in Positive Psychology. New York: Oxford University Press.

56. Samson, D. and Daft, R.L., 2012.,Management. 4th ed. Cengage Learning.

57. Yarrow, J., (2010), Google Bullied Out Of Another $26.5 Million In Cash By On2 Shareholders. (Online) Available at: http://www.businessinsider.com.au/google-adds-cash-to-its-on2-acquisition-to-close-the-deal-2010-1, accessed 30 May 2014.

asian journal of management research › ajmrvol1no1 › volfive › eijmrs5209.pdf · strived on...

Documents