Does Schmidt's
description of the Google Culture make sense to you?
I have always been
rather partial to Google as a premier search engine. After reviewing the video
and reading the transcript as well as the articles of Google’s internal culture
of controlled-chaos, I am somewhat hesitant to still believe that Google can
and will maintain itself ahead of the pack of other up and coming search
engines.
Google
headquarters is based in Mountain View, California is still operating under the
same “freewheeling” managerial style that it opened its doors with is somewhat
initially disconcerting. What this is telling me is the company and its
controlling “board of three” has failed to grow-up and adapt to a changing
global climate. To put it another way, much like this week’s chapter two
“Organizational renewal: The Challenge of Change” as stated in Brown (2011,)
Adapting to Change on page 34, that when an organization fails to change, the
very cost of failure could mean its survival. Google appears to be suffering
from a lack of Organizational Renewal, and if it is expected to survive against
its two biggest competitors, Microsoft and Yahoo, then Google must become
innovative, building adaptively into the core of its operation.
From an investor’s
perspective, the success it has enjoyed in the past several years, and
considering the personnel lost to its biggest competitors, I would not be able
to invest in the company. My long-range approach to investments and the
voracity that Google is undertaking are indicators that the organization will
prematurely burn itself out.
Is this a reasonable
way to view the work that most people are doing in your workplace?
The business models
that Eric Schmidt and Google have chosen to undertake are not indicative to my
line of work. Google is a service-based organization that is profit oriented
and my line of work is a research based, service oriented governmental agency
responsible to the taxpayers and not the shareholders.
As a leader, does it
take courage to have and to implement this point of view?
Could this approach
backfire?
Although the video is
based after the fact of Eric Schmidt relinquishing his CEO status back to
cofounder Larry Page, with Eric assuming the role of Executive Chairman with an
external focus. The move has displayed courage in both leaders convictions.
While not specifically stated, the rational could be similar to a flock of
geese changing leadership every so often to avoid overly wearing out one bird and
risk loosing it.
Another business
tactic employed by Google and discussed in an extremely poignant manner would
be the 20 percent rule. According to Eric, “this is where we tell people,
especially in engineering, that they can spend 20 percent of their time on
whatever they want. Now, these people are not that clever. They work on things,
which are adjacent to their areas of interest, which is what we hired them for”.
While I do not know
if this is an advertised business method with-in the company, the fact that
Eric chose to discuss the method at all and in the context that the engineers
at Google are as stated by Eric: “Now, these people are not that clever,” could
backfire on him and Google for making such a broad statement in public?
What can you take away from
this exercise to immediately use in your career?
Leaders and managers
with the USG are somewhat limited with regard to hiring and recruiting. By that
I am or course referring to affirmative action, EEO and seniority. Eric Schmidt
discussed “ One of the things about companies is, as you build them, you get a
chance to sort of determine the culture, the people, the style”. And “You need
to develop a culture where people actually are going to do what they’re going
to do, and you’re trying to assist them”.
I wish the USG had
the flexibility to hire, recruit and terminate individuals like the corporate
world. We have all heard the horror stories where someone in either the
competitive or executive service become unmanageable and cannot be terminated
due to the previously mentioned status.
I have seen first
hand where a manager would leave an agency because a portion of the workforce
are so out of control and the manager is held hostage because of an inability
to effectively manage the dissenters. It is draining upon not only the manager
but the other employees as well. Moral, productivity, innovation and initiative
drop to a point that the affected areas are no longer effective in the service
or product they are supposed to be providing. This is an unfortunate and
unnecessary drain on precious resources and personnel, who eventually leave for
greener pastures.
I plan to assertively
recommend the check and balance practice of hiring and recruiting new personnel
by way of a recruiting team as discussed in the vides like universities do by
way of a hiring committee. It is in place in certain agencies, it is just not
standard practice across the board, and may not be appropriate in all
circumstances; however, it could alleviate the good-old-boy syndrome by
inhibiting managers from hiring their friends or friends of friends as favors.
Culturally this could prove to be a daunting task, however, much like eating an
elephant, it would be accomplished one bit at a time.
References:
Brown, D. R.
(2011). An experiential approach to organization development (8th ed.).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall
Lee, A. (2013, June 07). How to build a culture like
Google: 7 practical ideas from 'the internship’. Entrepreneur, DOI: http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/226948
Schmidt,
E. (2011, May). Eric Schmidt on business culture, technology, and social
issues. McKinsey Quarterly, DOI: www.McKinsey.com
No comments:
Post a Comment