For more information please contact
“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
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
1.1. Objectives of the study
To analyze HRM technique and methods
To analyze how employees help a company in differentiating itself from its
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
To analyze the future implications of Google‟s HR practices in the long run
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 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
Google‟s 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
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
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
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 Type J (Japanese Type A (typical Type Z (credited
characteristics model) American model American model)
Commitment to Life contract Short term contract Long term contract
Evaluation Slow and qualitative Fast and quantitative Slow and qualitative
Careers Large and not based Very narrowed and Moderately based on
on specialty specialty based specialty
Control Implicit and informal Explicit and formal Implicit and informal
Decision making Grouped and Individual Grouped and
Responsibility Collective Individual Individual
Concern for people Holistic (firm and Narrowed (individual Global (individual at
family) tasks) work)
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 aren‟t 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 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.
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
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 “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 practices” (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, &
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. Google‟s HR practices clearly
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 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 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 W ebsite, s creen them and shortlist candidates for the
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 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 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 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 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), 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 develop ed 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 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).
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 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 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 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
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!
Fig 1 Salary comparison of Google‟s Software engineers with competitors (in $)
96% 6,871 4,958
86% 98,771 100,417 Salary
Source: “Apple Engineers Paid Below-Market Salaries”,
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
employees formally demanded a wage cut themselves. During the same period,
the turnover was 1.43% (W illock Rob).
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 ).
Google‟s 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. Google’s performance via staff performance
The success of Google‟s 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 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”
(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 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 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.
2.13. Critics on hiring process
Google‟s recruiting 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 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
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.
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.
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 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. 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
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
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 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 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 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 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
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 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 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
Appendix 1 Google Inc.
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
1999 Google moved its headquarters to Palo Alto California and later to Mountain
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 „DoubleClic k‟ for $3.2 billion, thwarting
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
Source: http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=google&sourceid=opera&ie=utf -
Source: http://www.google.com/intl/en/option s/
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/
Source: http://stre.co.za/uploads/posts/2007/4/12/thumbs/1176406575_google_office_2. jpg
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 ta sks 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 The spread of commitment to the concern beyond any technical
Structure of control, 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 Lateral; i.e., between people of differen t rank, resembling
members of concern consultation rather than command
Governance for operations Information and advice rather than instructions and decisions
and working behavior
Values Commitment to the concern's task and to the "technological ethos" of
material progress and expansion is more highly valued than loyalty
Prestige Importance and prestige attach to affiliations and expertise valid in
the industrial and technical and commercial milieu external to the firm
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
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 like 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, it‟s 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
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 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.
Brain-teasers as recruiting The other Google‟s recruiting is its creative use of roadside
tools: 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.
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 necessarily
interested in working for t he 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 like the firm.
Source: Sullivan John, “A look inside the Google talent machine”,
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
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
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
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 world’s 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
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
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.
Source: “Top 10 Reasons to Work at Google”,
A Look Inside the Google Talent Ma chine [online] Available at
223 [accessed 27 February 2010]
Baker Loren, Google Receives 1,000,000 Job Applications a Year [online] Available at
[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
Ben Elgin, “Managing Google's Idea Factory”, Business Week 3rd October 2005 Issue 3953,
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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 ,
Josey. How Google Searches For Talent”, Business week, 11 th April 2005 Issue 3928, p52-52.
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,
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,
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
http://www.ere.net/articles/db/95872408130C40EC8AD8B3FF0975D145.asp [accessed 27
Tom Burns and G.M. Stalker (1961) Organic Systems [online] Available at
[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
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
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