Google, it is such a powerful,
popular word. Ellen DeGeneres joked that “if you need to know something
immediately, you can Google it now… Ten years ago, if you said you were going to
‘Google’ someone, you got written up by Human Resources.” It is a search engine,
and one of the top five websites in the world, but it is also so much more.
Google is a company that is a culturally unique leader of industry that carries
out visionary pursuits while not really being managed. According to Eric Schmidt,
Google has a Borg-like quality, it just keeps moving forward.
If you do not know much about
Google as an organization, just know this: it is so much cooler than anywhere
you could dream of working. If you can dream up what would be a benefit that
you wish you had, Google probably has it and then a bunch of other stuff you
did not think to ask for because you did not know that you could have it or
that it was a work perk. So how did Google become Google? Eric Schmidt says it
is all in how you build a company, you determine the culture, the people, and
the style and that it is important who you hire at every level. According to
Schmidt, all of the management books tell you to consider the academic quality,
intelligence, intellectual flexibility, passion, and commitment, but that
nobody does it. He also states that you need to build a culture where people
are going to do what they are going to do and you are trying to assist them.
It is genius in simplicity;
Google chooses the right type of people and enables them with genuine employee
empowerment. “Employee empowerment is a technique for unleashing human
potential in organizations.” (Brown, 2011, p. 223) Employees at all levels
share a vision and engage in the organization, which allows for individuals to
be more effective and contributes to improving the entire organization (Brown,
2011). “Excellence is achieved by organizations that push risk taking and
decision making down to the lowest possible level.” (Brown, 2011, p. 224)
I imagine that creating a company
can feel like having a baby, an extension of your own life, and it takes a lot
of confidence to nurture the organization and then bravely push it out of the
nest and let it fly. I can imagine, for many reasons, why most organizations
fall short of Google’s success. When you grow a business you are pouring your
time, energy, ideas, life’s work, and money into it and it must be very
difficult not flinch because you are afraid you put all of your eggs into one
basket. I am sure resources run low and corners get cut. It takes an enormous
amount of courage to have and implement this point of view. While I think it
sounds like a no brainer in theory to want to choose these amazing Google type
employees, attracting and retaining are another story. Truly quality
individuals that know their worth and what type of environment they want to
work in require incentives, in various forms, to keep those types of people sticking
around. There must be symbiosis to make it work, much like a game of Jenga, imbalanced
calculations can cause it to come crashing down.
Google’s culture could easily
backfire. Any visionary plan has the possibility of failing. I know this from
very technical reasons. Google does not keep it a secret their ingredients to
success. Even with the ingredients it takes talent and execution while keeping
a watchful eye that is constantly renewing and editing throughout the process.
My proof is something called Pinterest fail. If you have not had the divine privilege
to be treated to the visual hilarity that ensues when crafting projects go
horribly wrong, “google” Pinterest fail and see the inspiration versus the
outcome. I can usually keep myself together until about the eighth fail and
then it just tickles me. I mean, finding ideas on Pinterest usually provides “how
to” instructions and pictures for reference, but sometimes it just does not go
as planned. If something like a DIY project can fail, sure, the approach Google
uses could backfire, too. I just do not think it will, not because of my
devotion to all that is Google, but I feel they will not fail because they understand
the fragile balance the organization rests upon.
In my organization, I can
commiserate in the trials and tribulations of the hiring and recruiting
process. The graduate academic advising team just set out in the last month to
include an additional advisor. I really had some skewed, unreasonable
expectations apparently. I think my opinion of interview candidates may be
rooted in the movies. Regardless, it was a very difficult process to find the
right fit for our team. Similar what Eric Schmidt explains, it is very
important to have compatibility with each other. This is something that my
organization does exceptionally well, perhaps eerily well. Once I was hired I
was kind of skeptical how well we fit and worked together, like there was a
secret recipe for hiring. I think it was all in the interview process, every
member of the grad team is on the interview panel and we all decided together
who is chosen. I think so far we keep hitting homeruns. Because of the cohesive
decision making process of who is part of the team and how we came together, I
feel that in our department it is reasonable to view the work that we are doing
to the functionality of Google’s. Our director and team leader do not
micromanage us, we are not monitored or watched, we are set free, empowered to
make decisions in what approach we might want to use with our students and how
clever we want to be in our emails, among other things. It may only be the tip
of the iceberg, so to speak, what things we are doing compared to what Google
is doing and I think we could always strive to do more of it, but in general I
feel we are in a really good place culturally.
For me, it seems like the take
away of what Google is doing is that you cannot smother people or crush them
into complacency. If you want something truly great, there are a lot of fierce
ideas of how organizations could be tremendous that one size fits all work
environments cannot possibly produce. I believe we teach ourselves there is one
best way to go to work, which circles back to the idea of the way it has always
been done. To me, this is one of the vilest phrases that can cross the lips. I
do not think there is one best way to run a company because there is not just
one type of person on the planet. It is a novel idea that when you grow up you
can do whatever you want, but we lose sight of it. You can go to school during
the day, you can go at night, or you can go online during the day or the night.
You can work on weekends and be off, running around during the day when
traditionally most people are at school or work. Sometimes I day dream about those
whose work clothes are not business clothes, but stylish, fashionable garments
that is considered weekend wear, cavorting about in the world instead of
sitting inside an office building during set blocks of time with no chance to breathe
fresh air. To me it is a romantic idea that there are people that get to do
that. It is not for everyone, though. Not everyone does things the same way;
you have to be brave to find what you want and what works for you. The lesson
here is that if you clear your mind of limits and societal or self-imposed rules,
you can design your life to be however you want. This is also true for building
companies. Take a chance and fall down the rabbit hole of discovery and find
out what really can be… I am pretty sure Google did.
References:
Brown, D. (2011). An experiential
approach to organizational development. (8th ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Eric Schmidt on business culture,
technology, and social issues | McKinsey & Company. (2011). McKinsey &
Company. Retrieved October 10, 2014, from http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/strategy/eric_schmidt_on_business_culture_technology_and_social_issues
No comments:
Post a Comment