Google Inc 2005 Case Study Analysis Sample

Posted on by Mat

As part of my continuing series of case studies and analyses of truly world-class recruiting functions, I will highlight some of the key features at Google, the world’s only corporate “recruiting machine.” In the past few months, I have spent a good deal of time researching Google and communicating with Google managers and employees in an attempt to identify their best practices. For those of you who are not in the technology field or who don’t consider Google to be a direct competitor for talent, you might be thinking, “Well, that’s nice, but what Google does doesn’t really impact me.” But if you did think that way, you’d be wrong.

“Disruptive Technology” and Strategic “Disruptive Recruiting”

Google, through its branding, PR, and recruiting efforts, has made itself so well known and attractive to professionals from every industry and university that they have essentially changed the game of recruiting forever. If you know anything about technology, you know that people in the field use the term “disruptive technology” for technologies like Apple’s iPod, which has almost overnight changed the entire technology and entertainment marketplace to the point where everyone must pay attention to what that firm is doing. Google has created the same phenomenom in the form of a “disruptive approach” to work and recruiting, an approach so different and so compelling that if you don’t pay attention and attempt to emulate some of the things they’re doing, you might soon lose some of the very best employees you have. I urge you to read on and to see some of the disruptive and breathtaking things Google is doing.

The World’s First Recruiting Culture

Google has accomplished something that no other corporation has ever accomplished. In less than a handful of years, they have developed what can only be categorized as a “recruiting machine.” They still have a ways to go, but what they have done so far can only be categorized as amazing. Now, Google still doesn’t have the best sales and marketing strategy (FirstMerit Bank does), nor are they the best when it comes to the use of metrics (Valero Energy is). But what they have done better than anyone else is to develop the world’s first “recruiting culture” (see my previous writings on this subject). What that means is that recruiting and the need for it permeates the entire organization. Not just the recruiting function or the HR organization, but the entire company — from the key leaders on down to the entry-level employees. As a result of this culture, not only does Google fund recruiting to the point where the function is in a league by itself, but they have also gone to the extraordinary step of changing the way employees work in order to attract and retain the very best. (Note: It might be credible to argue that Cisco in the late 90s had the world’s first “recruiting culture” but since the exit of Michael McNeal, Janel Canepa, Randall Birkwood et al, that function has long since been dismantled to below “K-Mart levels,” so it’s probably a moot issue.)

Google Has Changed Work Itself With “20% Time”

Many organizations have changed their pay or benefits in order to attract better workers, but no one has changed every professional job in the company just so that the work itself is the primary attraction and retention tool. Rather than letting work, jobs, and job descriptions be put together by the “out of touch” people in corporate compensation, Google’s founders (Larry and Sergey as everyone calls them), HR director Stacy Sullivan, and the leadership team at Google have literally crafted every professional job and workplace element so that all employees are:

  • Working on interesting work
  • Learning continuously
  • Constantly challenged to do more
  • Feeling that they are adding value

The key element of changing the work so that the work itself becomes a critical attraction and retention force and driver of innovation and motivation is what Google calls “20% work.” There is no concrete definition of what 20% work means, but generally for professional jobs it means that the employee works the equivalent of one-day-a-week on their own researching individually selected projects that the company funds and supports. Both Google Groups and Google News products are reported to have started as a result of personal 20% time projects. Other firms, like Genentech and 3M, have utilized similar programs, and although I’ve spent time at both firms, I find the Google approach to be clearly superior. Despite not being clearly publicized on their website, it is so easy to understand and so compelling that just the mention of 20% time excites applicants and current employees like no other program I’ve ever come across. In addition to being a phenomenal attraction tool, it also keeps their retention rate at, as one HR executive put it “almost nil.” But its greatest value is that it drives innovation and creativity throughout the organization.

At Google, innovation is expected of everyone in every function, not just product development. The 20% time, along with the expectation of continuous and disruptive innovation, has driven the company’s phenomenal success in product and service innovation. Yes, in this rare case, HR activities and policies are actually driving corporate business success.

One Thousand Millionaires

I find that most people who have never visited Google think that the primary attraction tool and driver of retention at Google is the phenomenal income derived from employee stock options. Yes, it is a fact that Google created an estimated 1,000 millionaire employees when they went public (they could be billionaire employees by the time you read this case study, if the stock price keeps growing and its current rate!). But rather than driving success, I have found (as I also found at previous stock-growth powerhouses like Charles Schwab, Intel, Cisco, and Microsoft) that rather than contributing to success, the money also has negative impacts. The public awareness of such widely held wealth among employees actually brings in a volume of resumes from people who want to “work for the money” rather than the joy of being at the firm that celebrates innovation more than any other company on the planet. Other ways that the wealth is distracting include the difficulty of motivating and managing individuals with sudden wealth and the almost inevitable “us versus them” mentality that is caused by the significant wealth differential between people hired before and after the IPO. My conclusion is that stock options are not the primary attractor of top talent at Google. Instead, it’s the work.

The World’s Largest Recruiting Budget

Google recruiting is the best-funded recruiting function in any major product-driven corporation. This is not in a misstatement. Arnnon Geshuri, the head of recruiting, and Stacy Sullivan, the director of HR, have done what can only be classified as an unbelievable job in convincing senior management to fund the recruiting effort beyond that of any corporation in history. My own calculations indicate that, at times, Google recruitment has a ratio of 1 recruiter for every 14 employees (14:1). That ratio surpasses the previous record of 65:1, held by Cisco during the first war for talent in the late ’90s. If on the surface this ratio doesn’t impress you, I might suggest that you compare it to the typically much larger ratio of employees to all HR professionals, which is about 100:1. Because “building a business case” is an essential factor for building a recruiting culture (or even for having a strategic impact), their funding level puts Google in a class by itself!

The Benefits Are Breathtaking

Before I highlight the extraordinary benefits that Google offers, it is important to note that although these benefits are certainly so breathtaking that they do in fact get almost every potential applicant’s attention, they are not designed just for recruiting purposes. Instead, these benefits are also designed to encourage collaboration, to break down barriers between functions, and to stimulate individual creativity and innovation. These benefits do attract some of the “wrong people,” that is, talented individuals who are seeking benefits rather than an opportunity to do their best work, which creates a screening challenge. In addition, some also argue that such a wealth of benefits and opportunities to play distracts less-focused workers from their jobs. The take away for other firms is that, even if you do match Google’s “non-work” benefits (as firms like SAS have almost done), you are not automatically going to attract the very best and the most innovative. To do that you also need a strong “employment brand” and jobs that are designed to continually challenge and grow employees. A partial list of Google’s “I bet you don’t have that where you work” benefits include:

  • Flex hours for nearly every professional employee
  • Casual dress everyday (and this goes well beyond business casual)
  • Employees can bring their dogs to work, everyday
  • On-site physician
  • On-site dental care
  • Health benefits that begin as soon as an employee reports for work
  • Free massage and yoga
  • Shoreline running trails
  • Stock options everywhere
  • Free drinks and snacks everywhere (espresso, smoothies, red bull, health drinks, kombucha tea, you name it)
  • Free meals, including breakfast, lunch and dinner (some have described this as a feast with multiple locations and world-class chefs, including one that cooked for the Grateful Dead)
  • Three weeks’ vacation during the first year
  • Free recreation everywhere, including video games, foosball, volleyball and pool tables
  • Valet parking for employees
  • Onsite car wash and detailing
  • Maternity and parental leave (plus new moms and dads are able to expense up to $500 for take-out meals during the first four weeks that they are home with their new baby)
  • Employee referral bonus program
  • Near site child care center
  • Back-up child care for parents when their regularly scheduled child care falls through
  • Free shuttle service to several San Francisco and East and South Bay locations (San Francisco is 45 miles away from the main campus)
  • Fuel efficiency vehicle incentive program ($5,000 assistance if you buy a hybrid)
  • Onsite dry cleaning, plus a coin-free laundry room
  • A Friday TGIF all-employee gathering where the founders frequently speak
  • A 401k investment program
  • A “no tracking of sick days” policy
  • Employee interest groups (formed by Google employees, these are all over the map and are said to include Buffy fans, cricketers, Nobel prize winners, and a wine club)
  • An onsite gym to work off all of the snacks

Note: These benefits are not all available to employees who do not work on Google’s Silicon Valley main campus. So what else drives the excellence of Google’s recruiting efforts? Next week I’ll look at Google’s approach to referrals, international recruiting, and employment branding, as well as some weaknesses in the Google approach.

  • Ahuja G (2000) Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: a longitudinal study. Administrative Science Quarterly 45(3):425–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Ahuja MK, Galletta DF, Carley KM (2003) Individual centrality and performance in virtual R&D groups: an empirical study. Management Science 49(1):21–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Albach H (1999) Innovation und Investition. Gabler, WiesbadenGoogle Scholar

  • Apte UM, Nath HK (2007) Size, structure and growth of the U.S. information economy. In: Apte U, Karmarkar U (eds) Managing in the information economy. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 1–28Google Scholar

  • Ara K, Kanehira N, Olguin Olgiun D et al (2008) Sensible organizations: changing our business and work style through sensor data. J Information Processing 16:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Aral S, Brynjolfsson E, Van Alstyne M (2006) Information, technology and information worker productivity: task level evidence. Proceedings of the 27th annual international conference on information systems. MilwaukeeGoogle Scholar

  • Balkundi P, Harrison DA (2006) Ties, leaders, and time in teams – strong inference about network structure’s effects on team viability and performance. Academy of Management Journal 49(1):49–68Google Scholar

  • Barrett CL, Eubank S, Kumar VS, Marathe MV (2004) Understanding large-scale social and infrastructure networks: a simulation based approach. SIAM News 37(4)Google Scholar

  • Berglind BL, Scales CD (1987) White-collar productivity: seeing through the camouflage. Management Review 76(6):41–47Google Scholar

  • Borgatti SP, Cross R (2003) A relational view of information seeking and learning in social networks. Management Science 49(4):432–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Borgatti SP, Foster PC (2003): The network paradigm in organizational research: a review and typology. Journal of Management 29(6):991-1013Google Scholar

  • Bortz J (1984) Lehrbuch der empirischen Forschung für Sozialwissenschaftler. Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar

  • Bortz J, Döring N (2006) Forschungsmethoden und Evaluation für Human- und Sozialwissenschaftler, 4th edn. Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar

  • Boyd NG, Taylor RR (1998) A developmental approach to the examination of friendship in leader-follower relationships. Leadership Quarterly 9:1–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Brass DJ (1981) Structural relationships, job characteristics, and worker satisfaction and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly 26(3):331–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Bulkley N, Van Alstyne MW (2006) An empirical analysis of strategies and efficiencies in social networks. MIT Sloan Research Paper No. 4682-08. Accessed 2008-04-23Google Scholar

  • Burt RS (1997) A note on social capital and network content. Social Networks 19:355–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Carrington PJ, Scott J, Wasserman S (eds) (2005) Models and methods in social network analysis. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar

  • Costa PT, McCrae RR (1992) NEO PI-R professional manual. Odessa, Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.Google Scholar

  • Cross R, Borgatti SP, Parker A (2002) Making invisible work visible: using social network analysis to support strategic collaboration. California Management Review 44(2):25–46Google Scholar

  • Cross R, Cummings JN (2004) Tie and network correlates of individual performance in knowledge-intensive networks. Academy of Management Journal 47(6):928–937CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Cross R, Parker A, Sasson L (2003) Networks in the knowledge economy. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar

  • Cross R, Parker A (2004) The hidden power of social networks. Understanding how work really gets done in organizations. Harvard Business School Press, BostonGoogle Scholar

  • Davenport TH, Prusak L (1998) Working knowledge: how organizations manage what they know. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar

  • Davenport TH, Thomas RJ, Cantrell S (2002) The mysterious art and science of knowledge-worker performance. MIT Sloan Management Review 44(1):23–30Google Scholar

  • Davenport TH (2005) Thinking for a living: how to get better performance and results from knowledge workers. Harvard Business School Press, BostonGoogle Scholar

  • Drucker PF (1999) Knowledge-worker productivity: the biggest challenge. California Management Review 41(2):79–94Google Scholar

  • Enkel E, Heinold P, Hofer-Alfeis J, Wicki Y (2000) The power of communities. how to build knowledge management on a corporate level using the bottom up approach. In: Davenport T, Probst G (eds) Knowledge management case book. Wiley, New York, pp 84–103Google Scholar

  • Gloor P, Oster D, Putzke J et al (2007) Studying microscopic peer-to-peer communication patterns. Proceedings of the 13th Americas conference on information systems (AMCIS). KeystoneGoogle Scholar

  • Gloor P, Oster D, Raz O, Pentland A, Schoder D (2009) The virtual mirror - reflecting on your social and psychological self to increase organizational creativity. J Int Studies of Management & OrganizationGoogle Scholar

  • Gloor PA, Paasivaara M, Schoder D, Willems P (2008) Finding collaborative innovation networks through correlating performance with social network structure. International Journal of Production Research 46(5):1357–1371CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Gloor P A, Zhao Y (2004) TeCFlow – a temporal communication flow visualizer for social networks analysis. Proceedings of the ACM CSCW workshop on social networks. ACM CSCW Conference, ChicagoGoogle Scholar

  • Grippa F, Zilli Antonio, Laubacher R, Gloor PA (2006) E-Mail may not reflect the social network. Proceedings of the North American association for computational social and organizational science (NAACSOS) conference. Notre DameGoogle Scholar

  • Guetzkow H, Simon H (1955) The impact of certain communication nets upon organization and performance in task-oriented groups. Management Science 1(3/4):233–250Google Scholar

  • Hannemann RA, Riddle M (2005) Introduction to social network methods. University of California, RiversideGoogle Scholar

  • Hansen M (1999) The search-transfer problem: the role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organizational subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly 44:82–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Helton R (1988) The “best work” method of knowledge worker assessment. Industrial Management 30(5):19–22Google Scholar

  • Huisman M, Duijn M (2005) Software for social network analysis. In: Carrington PJ, Scott J, Wasserman S (eds) Models and methods in social network analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 270–316Google Scholar

  • Krackhardt D, Hanson JR (1993) Informal networks: the company behind the charts. Harvard Business Review 71(4):104–111Google Scholar

  • Leavitt H (1951) Some effects of certain communication patterns on group performance. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 46:38–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Malone T, Laubacher R, Morton MS (2003) Inventing the organizations of the 21st century. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar

  • Mangelsdorf ME (2008) What makes information workers productive. MIT Sloan Management Review 49(2):16–17Google Scholar

  • Marsden PV (2005) Recent developments in network measurement. In: Carrington PJ, Scott J, Wasserman S (eds) Models and methods in social network analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 8–30Google Scholar

  • Mayo M, Pastor JC (2005) Networks and effectiveness in work teams: the impact of diversity. Instituto de Empresa Business School Working Paper No. WP05-10. Accessed 2008-04-23Google Scholar

  • McCrae RR, Costa PT (1983) Joint factors in self-reports and ratings: neuroticism, extraversion and openness to experience. Personality and Individual Differences 4(3):245–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Mehra A, Kilduff M, Brass DJ (2001) The social networks of high and low self-monitors: implications for workplace performance. Administrative Science Quarterly 46(1):121–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Molm LD (1994) Dependence and risk: transforming and structure of social exchange. Social Psychology Quarterly 57:163–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Moran P (2005) Structural vs. relational embeddedness: social capital and managerial performance. Strategic Management Journal 26(12):1129–1151CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Müller C, Gronau N (eds) (2007) Analyse sozialer Netzwerke und Social Software – Grundlagen und Anwendungsbeispiele. GITO, BerlinGoogle Scholar

  • Olguín Olguín D, Pentland A (2008) Social sensors for automatic data collection. 14th Americas conference on information systems. TorontoGoogle Scholar

  • Pentland A (2008) Honest signals: how they shape our world. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar

  • Pentland A (2005) Socially aware computation and communication. IEEE Computer 38(3):33–40Google Scholar

  • Pentland A, Choudhury T, Eagle N, Singh P (2004) Human dynamics – computation for organizations. Pattern Recognition Letters 26(4):503–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Podolny JM, Baron JN (1997) Resources and relationships: social networks and mobility in the workplace. American Sociological Review 62(5):673–693CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Powell WW, Koput KW, Smith-Doerr L (1996) Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly 41(1):116–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Putzke J, Gloor P, Fischbach K, Olguin DO, Oster D, Schoder D, Pentland S (2008) Business Intelligence und die Analyse unternehmensinterner Kommunikationsprozesse. In: Bichler M et al (eds) Multikonferenz Wirtschaftsinformatik 2008. GITO, BerlinGoogle Scholar

  • Ramírez YW, Nembhard DA (2004) Measuring knowledge worker productivity: a taxonomy. J Intellectual Capital 5(4):602–628CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Raz O, Gloor PA (2007) Size really matters – new insights for start-ups’ survival. Management Science 53(2):169–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Reagans R, Zuckerman EW (2001) Networks, diversity, and productivity: the social capital of corporate R&D teams. Organization Science 12(4):502–517CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Shaw M (1964) Communication networks. In: Berkowitz L (ed) Advances in experimental social psychology. Academic Press, New York, pp 111–147Google Scholar

  • Sparrowe RT, Liden RC, Wayne SJ (2001) Social networks and the performance of individuals and groups. Academy of Management Journal 44(2):316–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Uzzi B (1996) The sources and consequences of embeddedness for the economic performance of organizations: the network effect. American Sociological Review 61(4):674–698

  • Categories: 1

    0 Replies to “Google Inc 2005 Case Study Analysis Sample”

    Leave a comment

    L'indirizzo email non verrà pubblicato. I campi obbligatori sono contrassegnati *