ERI 260 Case Assignment Dilpreet Sidhu

996977785

June 11, 2012

University of Toronto

Introduction

There are various factors that can determine whether a particular organization will thrive and be

successful or fail to reach its potential. Perhaps no other factor is as crucial to an organization’s

success as employee engagement. Employee engagement is essentially concerned with the

satisfaction and motivation of employees. Having employees who are highly satisfied with their

jobs is beneficial for an organization resulting in higher performance, lower turnover and

absenteeism, and greater customer satisfaction and profit. Similarly, employee motivation is also

strongly linked to performance and absenteeism. Thus, when a business is failing to meet

expectations, OB theorists and consultants often look to improve employee engagement within

the organization. Due to lack of sufficient work experience from the author, this case assignment

will be examining employee dissent and poor engagement at Google, as demonstrated by the

article “Why Google Employees Quit” (http://techcrunch.com/2009/01/18/why-google-

employees-quit/). The article contains a series of e-mails from former Google employees sharing

their poor experiences working at Google and detailing the factors that led to them leaving.

Google is an American corporation that provides a variety of services for people and businesses.

Google provides a variety of tools to help businesses of all kinds succeed on and off the web

(advertising programs, cloud computing tools). Google also builds products that make the web

experience better (Chrome, Android) by making it simpler and faster for people to do what they

want to online. Google was founded in 1998, by Larry Page and Sergey Brin who met at

Stanford University in 1995. The company’s mission statement and goal is “to organize the

world's information and make it universally accessible and useful”. Google values its employees,

hiring people who are smart and determined and favour ability over experience. Its employees

are diverse in their languages, educational background, and experiences. Google strives to

maintain an open culture in which everyone is a hands-on contributor and feels comfortable

sharing ideas and opinions (http://www.google.ca/intl/en/about/company/)

Analysis

In the article “Why Google Employees Quit”, former employees discuss various reasons for

leaving the organization as well as the shortcomings of Google. Essentially, employee

engagement and motivation is low due to various factors including: low pay relative to what

employees could earn elsewhere, low fringe benefits, too much bureaucracy, poor management,

poor mentoring, and a long hiring process. Initially employees thought that they would be

working their dream job and enter the promised land but most of them ended up disappointed,

with the job failing to meet their expectations, experiencing a honeymoon hangover phase.

Discrepancy theory examines the discrepancy between job outcomes wanted vs. perceived to be

obtained. In this case, job outcomes perceived to be obtained do not match up with job outcomes

wanted. Due to Google’s pristine image and immense reputation as innovators of the world,

many employees perhaps may have entered the organization with grandeur visions of changing

the world, but this is often far from the case. “I had all these big ideas I could do if I ever worked

there. Once inside, you have 18 000 other Googlers thinking the same things”. This is largely

due to Google’s stringent and thorough hiring process, hiring only the best of the best. Google

tends to value employees with extra education (masters, Ph.D), resulting in people that are

overqualified to work at Google and whose abilities are largely underutilized. Thus, in a

competitive environment where all your co-workers are creative, original, and open to

experiences, the work environment can seem daunting and overwhelming to new employees or

graduates. Often times, this may result in a lack of diversity in the workforce resulting in similar

ideas in thinking and perceptions. Google’s hiring process contains errors in all stages beginning

from the resume stage up until the interview and recruitment phase. For one, Google’s hiring

process is too long and drawn-out. This may be understandable since Google only wants to hire

those at the top of their fields resulting in a higher skilled workforce and a lower rate of attrition.

However, Google needs to understand that good engineers and software developers are in high

demand and are aggressively recruited by many companies that offer more money. For many

employees the hiring process can take up to five months. This can be especially problematic

when a prospective employee is leaving an already established career and perhaps moving cities

or even states. Furthermore, Google involves top level executives and management directly in

the hiring process, which is a huge waste of time and mismanagement of resources. For example,

Google co-founder Larry Page is often involved in reviewing resumes. During the interview

process, Google tends to rely on perceptual biases and heuristics to select employees. In one

case, Google relied heavily on contrast effects to hire an employee, “I flubbed my first coding

pretty bad but after it was clear that no one on my interview loop had enough experience or

knowledge as me”. Reliance on such heuristics often results in a poorer quality workforce and

workers that are underqualified for the job. Google also maintains a minimum cap of 3.8 GPA

when interviewing prospective employees, favouring potential abilities and skill over actual

experience. Google’s interview questions also lack sophistication and pertinence to the job. For

example, recruiters often ask brain teasers and trivia questions. Lastly, when an employee is

finally hired, there is very minimum formal mentoring involved, which may lead to psychosocial

issues as well as career problems. Another factor that can be attributed to Google’s low

employee engagement is the fact that Google pays relatively lower to similar software and

technology corporations and offers fewer fringe benefits. Google should realize that in order to

attract top talent, they have to be willing to spend money to attract such workers away from

orporations who are willing to invest more resources in them. The key problem with Google

seems to be that it cares too much about cost efficiency and saving money. For example, in order

for Google benefits to be equal to Microsoft, it would cost an additional $22 million/year. For

some organizations this would seem like a non-feasible option but for Google, whose net profit is

$11.6 billion (2011), this is less than 1% of the organization’s income. Whenever Google has

been questioned on its employee’s relatively low pay, Google consistently relies on its prestige

and image to justify the pay, “People don’t work at Google for the money, they work there

because they want to change the world”. This is a noble cause but if Google wants to continue to

change the world, its employees have to be satisfied and motivated. Equity Theory is directly

related to motivation as it involves the comparison of input and outcomes of your job to others

whether they be co-workers, or people with similar jobs in other organizations. Thus, if Google

employees are comparing themselves to Microsoft employees or Apple employees, they’re going

to feel as if they’ve drawn the short end of the stick and perceive a lack of distributive fairness.

Recommendations

Engagement levels at Google can be raised through certain interventions. First and foremost,

Google’s hiring process needs to be revamped to make the transition from an employee’s

previous job to Google that much easier. During the recruitment and hiring process, Google

should place a greater emphasis on pursuing top talent as quickly and efficiently as possible.

Google’s current strategy of “playing hard to get” is in no way beneficial to the organization as

the engineers and developers they are looking to hire are in very high demand and can often find

work very quickly. Google’s reliance on skilled and talented workers is especially important

particularly in a technological field which demands constant innovation and product

enhancement. Thus, it should be Google “begging” employees to come work for them, rather

than the current situation. The hiring process is usually the first interaction between a prospective

employee and an organization and so it is crucial to present a favourable first impression of the

organization. One way this can be done is to reduce the time involved in the lengthy hiring

process. The problem may be that Google is simply searching for the best available talent and by

reducing the hiring process, their workforce would diminish in quality. However, this is not

necessarily the case. Google could perhaps create a certain screening process whereby they use

criteria for determining exactly what they are looking for in an employee. Those employees-to-

be that meet the criteria get to advance further on in the hiring process, and those that do not are

removed from the job search. For example, Google could perhaps administer personality tests or

job compatibility tests to determine whether an individual would be suited for the position. As

for the actual interview and recruitment process, Google has many issues that can easily be

corrected. For one, having top level executives such as co-founder Larry Page involved in

reviewing resumes is unnecessary and a waste of resources. Only Google’s HR department and

recruiters should be involved in the selection and hiring of employees. However, the inherent

problem with Google is that its human resources department is severely lacking and is perhaps

the organization’s weak point. “All of the recruiters were contractors, even though Google

showed no signs of slowing down hiring. This led to old recruiters spending more time training

new recruiters resulting in the long hiring process”. If Google wants to identify and select only

the best candidates, then perhaps it would be wise to hire full-time recruiters who are invested in

the organization’s success and well-being and can be held responsible for their consequences.

Furthermore, it would be wise to have recruiters who are aware of the organization’s culture and

values, and be able to distinguish a good candidate from an excellent one. One of the

consequences of having a weak recruiting department is the fact that they will tend to rely on

heuristics and biases when hiring individuals. For example, Google’s recruiters used contrast

effects when hiring employees as well as asking non-pertinent questions unrelated to the job. In

addition to hiring full time recruiters, Google could also seek to improve the validity of

interviews. For example, the questions being asked should not only be relevant to the job

(question sophistication) but they should be consistent, in which the same questions are asked in

the same order to every candidate. In addition, to reduce hiring times, Google should standardize

their evaluation by creating numeric scores or criteria for all questions, as mentioned before. This

would help Google determine exactly who the best candidates are and what makes them the best.

Another problem is that Google seeks to hire employees with extra education, leaving people

overqualified and underutilized for their jobs. Job satisfaction will usually suffer if people do not

feel as if their work is mentally challenging and if they are not being adequately compensated.

Rather than emphasizing GPA and education, Google should place a greater focus on previous

work experiences. By hiring employees whose experiences match the job description, not only

will the employee be proficient and know what to expect but productivity in the workplace will

increase overall. Another major problem with Google is the low pay they offer employees

relative to other big corporations. Google should realize that the basis of its operations directly

depends on its employees and in order to lure away the top talent, they need to be able to spend

and invest in employees. By bringing the perks on par with similar competitors, it will bring

down the attrition level and increase job satisfaction. For example, by offering Employee Stock

Ownership Plans, which allow employees to own a set of the company’s shares, employees will

have a greater stake in the organization as well as something to look forward to. Google can also

offer retirement benefit plans, insurance plans, vacation days etc. However, the greatest

motivator would be money. If Google continues to rely on hiring “those who want to change the

world”, then it should be ready to compensate its greatest innovators. Google’s best option would

be to create a system in which only the team/group that comes up with the idea/innovation gets a

portion of the profit (gain sharing). This would help create much more competition in the

environment leading to greater innovation as well as just compensation. This would give Google

greater control and reward only those that are actively contributing, while at the same time still

maintaining the cost efficiency Google demands.

Validation

Google should make a good first impression on prospective employees. Signalling theory states

that job applicants interpret their recruitment experiences as cues or signals about what it is like

to work in an organization. Therefore, it is crucial for Google to make the hiring process as

friendly and efficient as possible. The first impression usually does last the longest due to our

perceptual tendencies; constancy is a tendency to always perceive a person/organization the same

way as the first time you met. Thus, if an employee likes the interviewer and has a favourable

impression of the organization, they will be more inclined to stay and work harder. Many of

these issues in interviews can be eliminated by improving validity through: question consistency,

question sophistication, question consistency, and rapport building. As for Google’s money

issue, increasing pay for top employees (gain sharing) would be beneficial since money is the

greatest motivator, satisfying nearly all of Maslow’s needs. Similarly, discrepancy theory

provides evidence that when there’s a small gap between pay you expect and pay you receive,

satisfaction will increase regardless of other factors. As a result of this increase in pay,

employees will perceive a sense of distributive fairness, and according to equity theory,

comparisons of input/outcomes to similar workers will now be seen as fair. Furthermore, by

explaining the process used (gain sharing) to determine pay, employees will also perceive

procedural fairness.

Works Cited

Arrington, M. (2009, January 18). Why google employees quit. Tech Crunch, Retrieved from http://techcrunch.com/2009/01/18/why-google-employees-quit/

Brin, S. (n.d.). Organize the world. Retrieved from http://www.google.ca/intl/en/about/company/

Johns, G., & Saks, A. (2011). Organizational behaviour: Understanding and managing life at work. (8 ed.). Pearson Education Canada.

Pitek, J. (2012). Organizational Behaviour [Powerpoint Slides]. Retrieved from http://www.portal.utoronto.ca