1

Analysis of Google HR

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

2

“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 Work For' culture

at Google

To analyze the future implications of Google‟s HR practices in the long run

3

2. Google.com

2.1. Background of the Company

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 Sergey 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, off ice 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 signif icant 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

Google‟s progress with all the employees and on occasions they included a

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

4

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

Google‟s 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.

Google‟s organizational culture can be analyzed thought Ouchi‟s framework

(1943). Ouchi studied three different company‟s culture and saw that the

5

differences between those explained a part of the company‟s success.

Depending on his theory it seems that Google Inc. is the type Z US firms.

Fig 1 Ouchi‟s framework

Cultural

characteristics

Type J (Japanese

model)

Type A (typical

American model

Type Z (credited

American model)

Commitment to

employees

Life contract Short term contract Long term contract

Evaluation Slow and qualitative Fast and quantitative Slow and qualitative

Careers Large and not based

on specialty

Very narrowed and

specialty based

Moderately based on

specialty

Control Implicit and informal Explicit and formal Implicit and informal

Decision making Grouped and

consensual

Individual Grouped and

consensual

Responsibility Collective Individual Individual

Concern for people Holistic (firm and

family)

Narrowed (individual

tasks)

Global (individual at

work)

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 steady

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 environment 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 aren‟t any

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

6

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 individual‟s 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 Google‟s

organization as it is non-hierarchical and cross-functional: there aren‟t 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.

Work 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 and 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 f inancially 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,

7

Googlers enjoy the f lexibility 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 Week, 2005).

2.4. Social Good

A social system is a complex set of human relationships interacting in many

ways. Within 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 “Don‟t 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 Google„s 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 are 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. Google‟s HR practices clearly

8

reveal the impressive results of the company‟s approach, 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.

2.6. Google’s Human Resource Practices . Selection and Recruiting

Recruitment at Google is the f irst 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 company‟s 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 Google‟s Website, screen 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

9

scale of 1 – 4, with 4 being the highest. Lynn Fox, Google‟s spokeswoman said,

“Our recruiting organization is world-class, and we‟ve been pleased with our

ability to scale quickly without sacrif icing 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, the company also evaluates

candidates on their „Googleyness‟, ability to work in Google‟s flat organizational

structure and their knack of working in small teams. Valuing intelligence and

creativity, Google also pays close attention to the academic record of 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. With a ratio of about 1 recruiter for every

14 employees (1:14), Google‟s HR has emerged as one of the „best -funded‟

recruiting functions among product-based organizations (“A Look Inside the

Google Talent Machine”).

2.7. Innovations in Google’s recruiting process

The recruiting team of Google developed creative approaches and restructured

the recruiting tool to deliver a targeted recruiting message. The new innovation

in Google‟s recruiting function is the data-driven approach to candidate

assessment (Lashinsky Adam). The company‟s new assessment tool relies 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

10

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 signif icant 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 scientif ic, data-based approach for

selecting the candidates has a signif icant 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 f its 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).

Google‟s 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 compensation

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 personnel. Google‟s 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 consideration

and approved for implementing which enhances employee creativity and boosts

employee morale. Additionally, Googlers also fetch good salaries. While 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

11

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 Google‟s Software engineers with competitors (in $)

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

80%

82%

84%

86%

88%

90%

92%

94%

96%

98%

100%

Software Engeneer

Software Development

Engineer

Software Engeneer

Software Engeneer

97,84

98,771 100,417 84,25

14,733

6,871 4,958 4,75

Tota

l Co

mp

ensa

tio

n

Bonus

Salary

Source: “Apple Engineers Paid Below-Market Salaries”,

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

12

employees formally demanded a wage cut themselves. During the same period,

the turnover was 1.43% (Willock 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 work 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).

Google‟s competitiveness, this strategy has been working wonders for the

company. As a result employee has come up with application such as Google

Talk, Gmail, and also their San Francisco WI-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. With every team member being knowledgeable sitting next to each other,

knowledge sharing is a part of life everyday 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. With the snippet every

employee shares the problem and solution that he/she came up with.

2.10. Google’s performance via staff performance

The success of Google‟s products and services is mainly because 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 Google‟s corporate business success. To encourage creativity

and interaction among employees, Google‟s office is designed so as to provide

colors, lighting and shared room. Google‟s HR practices reveal that the

company‟s approach helped in increasing employee productivity. “The average

Google employee generates more than $1 million in revenue each year”

13

(Fletcher Sarah, 2008). This helps Google leverage its workforce productivity,

which in turn enhances employee morale. Google‟s HR policies and work culture

are unique and the managers are allowed to try new approaches, to make

mistakes and learn from failure. The organization‟s recruiting function is different

from traditional methodology. The company‟s 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 signif icant role

in its success. Google is considered by many personnel as the best place to

work mainly because of its fun at work 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 management

experts from Wharton University, “All the perks provided by Google mean

business.” Peter Cappelli, Management Professor and Director of the Center for

Human Resources at Wharton said, “These benefits help companies recruit

people who are willing to spend 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.‟

Google‟s 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. Google’s 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.

14

2.13. Critics on hiring process

Google‟s 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 „Why 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 I‟m 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, however 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 Google‟s head count has

more than tripled (“Google Hiring like it‟s , 1999), however managers need time

for approval of each position in order to make the right decision.

15

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 Google‟s ability to get experienced recruiters. Google‟s

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 Werbach,

assistant Professor of Legal Studies and Business Ethics at Wharton 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 diff icult for it to provide the same financial and other incentives for its

employees. Google‟s 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. It‟s 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 diversif ication, 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 capitalist cited a shortage of web development

16

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 short supply. He added, “I

know firsthand that we‟ve 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 they‟re to blame, not the employee.”

Google‟s 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 Wharton 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 candidates‟ 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 f lexible 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

17

Google‟s 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 small 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 Google‟s 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.

18

Appendices

Appendix 1 Google Inc.

Years Events 1995 The founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page met at Stanford University 1996 Page and Brin started their partnership. „Pagerank‟ was developed 1997 BackRub the precursor to the contemporary Google search engine

1998 Google was incorporated and moved into its f irst office – a garage in Menlo Park California

1999 Google moved its headquarters to Palo Alto California and later to Mountain View

2000 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

2001 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

2002 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

2003 Google was made available in 100 languages

2004 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

2005 Google purchased „DoubleClick‟ – database of consumers‟ intentions and behavior. Google expanded its global presence by entering Sweden, Brazil, Mexico and China. Google purchased „DoubleClick‟ for $3.2 billion, thwarting Microsoft‟s intentions

2006 Google purchased „YouTube‟ at $1.65 billion, making it the company‟s most expensive purchase till date

2007 Topped Fortune‟s list of „Best Place to Work‟

2008 Once again voted as the „Best Place to Work‟ by Fortune

2009 The Google Translator Toolkit, Google SMS, Sky Map for Android, new search features, redesign Google Labs

Completed by the author

19

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

8&oe=utf-8

Source: www.google.com

20

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

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

21

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

22

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/

23

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

24

Appendix 3 Organic culture

Tom Burns and G.M. Stalker (1961) Organic Systems:

Organic Organization Form / Management System Appropriate Conditions Changing

Distribution of tasks Contributive nature of special knowledge and experience to the common task of the concern

Nature of Individual task The "realistic" nature of the individual task, which is seen as set by the total situation of the concern

Who (re)defines tasks The adjustment and continual redefinition of individual tasks through interaction with others

Task scope 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)

How is task conformance ensured

The spread of commitment to the concern beyond any technical definition

Structure of control, authority and communication

Network, Presumed Community of Interest

Locating of knowledge

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

Communication between members of concern

Lateral; i.e., between people of different rank, resembling consultation rather than command

Governance for operations and working behavior

Information and advice rather than instructions and decisions

Values Commitment to the concern's task and to the "technological ethos" of material progress and expansion is more highly valued than loyalty and obedience

Prestige 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

25

Appendix 4 Standard Recruiting Tools of Google

Employee referral: Google‟s referral program is without any industry leading features, but the company‟s strong brand coupled with its highly enthusiastic workforce makes up for weaknesses in the program.

College recruitment: 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.

Professional networking: Google also effectively uses networking groups l ike Linkedin and other live professional events to recruit top performers.

Recruiter training: Google is one of only a handful of companies that requires most

newly hired recruiters to go through extensive recruiter training prior to starting.

AdWords as a recruiting tool: Google uses its own Google search tool to find “passive” candidates. Because Google is recognized as the master of

search, i t‟s not surprising that they uti lize 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 keywords are typed into a search

Contests as recruiting tools: One of Google‟s recruiting strategy is the use of a contest to identify and attract top software engineers. The Google Code

Jam, as they call i t, 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.

Brain-teasers as recruiting

tools: The other Google‟s recruiting is i ts creative use of roadside

billboards and math tests placed in magazines to garner the attention of math and programming wizards. Google has placed brainteaser bi llboards 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 participants to the Google site.

Friends of Google: 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 necessari ly interested in working for the company. By signing up these individuals and then periodically sending them emails about the

firm‟s products and events, Google can build a relationship with thousands of people that l ike the firm.

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

26

Appendix 5 Reasons to Work at Google

Top 10 Reasons to Work at Google

Lend a helping hand. With millions of visitors every month, Google has become an essential

part of everyday life - like a good friend - connecting people with the information they need to live great lives.

Life is beautiful. Being a part of something that matters and working on products in which you

can believe is remarkably fulfilling.

Appreciation is the best motivation so we've created a fun and inspiring workspace you'll be glad to be a part of, including on-site doctor and dentist; massage and yoga; professional development opportunities; on-site day care; shoreline running trails; and plenty of snacks

to get you through the day.

Work and play are not mutually exclusive. It is possible to code and pass the puck at the same

time.

We love our employees, and we want them to know it. Google offers a variety of benefits, including a choice of medical programs, company-matched 401(k), stock options, maternity

and paternity leave, and much more.

Innovation is our bloodline. Even the best technology can be improved. We see endless

opportunity to create even more relevant, more useful, and faster products for our users. Google is the technology leader in organizing the world’s information.

Good company everywhere you look. Googlers range from former neurosurgeons, CEOs, and U.S. puzzle champions to alligator wrestlers and former-Marines. No matter what their backgrounds

Googlers make for interesting cube mates.

Uniting the world, one user at a time. People in every country and every language use our

products. As such we think, act, and work globally - just our little contribution to making the world a better place.

Boldly go where no one has gone before. There are hundreds of challenges yet to solve. Your

creative ideas matter here and are worth exploring. You'll have the opportunity to develop innovative new products that millions of people will find useful .

There is such a thing as a free lunch after all . In fact we have them every day: healthy, yummy,

and made with love.

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

27

References

A Look Inside the Google Talent Machine [online] Available at http://www.humanresourcesmagazine.com.au/articles/B1/0C0429B1.asp?Type=60&Category=1223 [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 “Google‟s Leap May Slow Rival‟s Growth” , Business Week, 18th July

2005 Issue 3943, p45-45

28

Elgin, Ben and Hesseldahl, Arik. “Google‟s 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/company-

histories/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 Google‟s 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 Google‟s Innovation Machine, Harvard Business Review, April 2008

Judy McCarter, “Make Google Your Business Partner,” National Public

Accountant, August 2003, p-21.

29

Kirkpatrick, David. “Google‟s 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 it‟s 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 They‟re All Business” [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, 11th

April 2005 Issue 3928, p52-52.

30

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 (91 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). Discovery 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

31

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/why-

google-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-the-mind-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]