It seems clear that Google is a company that will last into the undeterminable future. It feels this way because Google develops people with abilities to create and perform at levels that are undeterminable. Google’s strategy seems attainable at the rate which it creates these people. Just recently a former Google Tech Manager was giving a position to head Yahoo Inc. as president and CEO, Marissa Mayer. Marissa Mayer has a great reputation from her work at Google and on the Board of Wall Mart. She is an exceptionally hard working woman who defies the stereotype and brings a special way into encouraging and motivating future women leaders. Her time at Yahoo will not be easy, the company has been in serious reconstruction of it’s strategically pursuance of survival in a world dominated by Bing, Google and Facebook. For Yahoo adding some previous Google employees would seem to be a good thing for the company. Twitter for example a thriving social media company has taken some on. According to the Wall Street Journal, “Some former Googlers have said they have taken what they have learned management-wise from Google to their new jobs. Twitter’s Mr. Costolo said in January that about 80 to 90 Twitter employees previously worked at Google, the biggest feeder for the start-up, which has more than 900 employees.” Although we learned about product quality, having a quality management system created by employees will most likely create a quality product. Most products even the most innovative ones need a strong functions management team behind it. This is what employees at Google offer. According to the WSJ, “In a 2010 interview, Mr. Armstrong said he also has tried to apply many valuable lessons learned from working at Google under Mr. Schmidt. Those include keeping in mind how much of Google’s success came from a willingness to make bold moves in its early days, as when the company dramatically revamped its AdWords online search advertising program roughly a decade ago, forming what would serve as a key source of revenue, said Mr. Armstrong.” The quality and strategy that former Google employees take away from working at Google is fascinating, I am not sure whether it’s because of their “open” company culture or Google’s continuous education programs, you can answer that in the comments if you would like. But what I have learned from reading about Google is that the characteristics of managing quality are supported by their ability to generate growth through all sorts of demanding tasks.
10 thoughts on “Google’s True Implications of Quality”
Google’s company culture is one of my favorite models, as well. Actually, from your post, it seemingly can be deducted that many other companies view Google’s company culture as a ‘model’ to imitate, as well. This idea that Google’s company culture structure can be copied and that utilizing Google’s former employees in order to do so is an effective strategy, however, is unethical and lacks logic. Not only is that a form of ‘stealing’ or plagiarizing, but I was surprised that so many former Google employees were able to accept a new position at a competitor’s company, considering it is often legally prohibited according to common practices in the creation of similar employee contracts.
Google is an ideal company to many new and upcoming companies. Out of four companies I have interned at, two of them were fairly new companies. They have been around for five to seven years. Besides the old and existing companies, the two new companies I have worked at, I noticed that they are trying to be a lot like Google. They were trying to bring in the same environment for their employees as it is at Google. From having lunches, games and even basketball hoops inside the office. One thing that I have also realized, is having this kind of environment is beneficial for both employees and the business as well.
Coming back to your article and also the comment above, I think it is not stealing or unethical to use the experience and knowledge you gained from an other company and use it in the new business. Life itself is a classroom where you are constantly learning new things. Hence, as long as you are not sharing the personal information about the companies and just using your experience it is okay to use that process.
Google definitely has tremendous human capital. Their strategy also allows their employees time to work on side projects which allows them to pickup pet projects and reinforces their loyalty to the company. Google has had their share of failures also (Google Wave, Google Buzz, etc), but because the successes are so big, they’re inconsequential. Mayer will have to assess the various projects going on at Yahoo and decide which ones deserve the resources of the company. No doubt many tough decisions will need to be made to turn around this Internet icon.
In this article from TechCrunch, the author cites that 1/3 of Google’s acquisitions are not successful: http://techcrunch.com/2012/05/23/googles-david-lawee-one-third-of-googles-acquisitions-are-failures-and-slide-is-definitely-one-of-them/
I think you are exactly right about google’s success being largely due to the tremendous care, time, and money they put into their employees. I have been fortunate enough to visit the google office in NY and it is absolutely incredible. Their block long office has scooters which you can ride from one end of the office to the other, endless food, snacks, and beverages, and MANY 5 star chefs on duty to prepare any food you would like. Their open floor plan is sleek and supports brainstorming and is very accommodating for large groups. They are definitely doing many things right over there. I would be very interested to know how their employees are trained about the google “culture”. They seem to breed productive, energetic, and forward thinking people.
I would agree on how well Google takes care of their human capital. I have heard several times in different types of firms that they want their employees to be happy because happy employees produce good and quality work. I would also want to know how Google describes and trains their employees on their culture.
The open floor plan is one strategy that I know has been incorporated at other similar companies. At Facebook, interns share the room with higher-ups in the company such as Zuckerberg. The brainstorming function of the approach is undeniably successful, too. So easy to bounce an idea off someone working within a few steps of you. And with no barriers, they can be overheard by other employees allowing for their two cents to be inputted as well.
Google’s largest asset, as the author of the post illustrates, is unarguably it’s employees. This certainly comes from training programs and corporate culture. However, I do not believe that taking an approach is considered stealing; if employees were actually breaching a non compete covenant, Google surely would have taken action. They are merely trying to employ cultural strategies, which is probably beneficial for competition in the industry. On the other hand, the large concentration of former Google employees at other comparable companies raises a few questions; why are they leaving? If this migration becomes substantial Google could be facing some obstacles.
I would agree. Using similar employee moral boasting tactics is in no way stealing. If it were, you could be your bottom dollar that there would be several lawsuits regarding the matter. It is basic understanding to base a business model off of an established successful business. There is no need to reinvent he wheel!
I also agree with what you are saying here. Google has always been know for their great employee training strategies. I think that being able to use the skills that Google has taught these employees is a plus for whoever they go work for in the future and wouldn’t be consider stealing.
I also agree with what you are saying here . Google has always been know for their great employee training strategies. I think that being able to use the skills that Google has taught these employees is a plus for whoever they go work for in the future and wouldn’t be consider stealing.