The document is the final team paper for a management class prepared by a group on Google Inc. It contains 3 sections analyzing different aspects of Google: 1) Planning - It discusses Google's mission statement, stakeholders, and use of personal user information which raises ethical concerns. 2) Leadership - It analyzes Google CEO Larry Page's transformational leadership style and democratic decision-making. 3) Controlling/HR Management - It discusses how Google uses rapid prototyping to learn from failures, its focus on advertising technology, and its unique strategic HR model that aims to attract and retain top talent. The document also includes a group reflection on collaborating effectively and improving their teamwork over the course of

1. GOOGLE INC.
Final Team Paper
Prepared for:
Holly Ferraro PhD, Professor of Introduction to Management
Albers School of Business & Economics, Seattle University
Prepared by:
Edan Choi
Gavin Chun
Andreina Montes
Wenmin Wang
December 08, 2014

2. Patch 1: Planning (1423)
Statements & Stakeholders
This mission statement1
clearly communicates Google’s purpose of being. It shows that
they process collected information and present it to a variety of people in the most efficient and
relevant way possible.
While this isn’t their official vision statement2
, we feel that it should be. Through
alternative technologies, such as wearables like Google Glass3
, Google can make accessing
information (and viewing ads) ubiquitous, fully integrating information access into our lives.
However, the lack of an official vision statement indicates that either Google isn’t sure what it
wants to become or it doesn’t want its true goal known.
Google’s stakeholders are as follows: customers, employees, developers, investors, and
advertisers. Google’s customers are the most important and the company tries to satisfy them
first; however, this doesn’t always work. An ethical controversy raised by customers is about
Google’s storage of their personal information. Although Google claims its use is to improve
information relevancy, there are still concerns that personal information could fall into the wrong
hands.4
Stitching
When we started working on this patch, we were unsure of what we were expected to
do. In our uncertainty we decided apply as much material from class as we could, using multiple
analysis tools in an attempt to understand Google’s planning. This resulted in a disjointed
analysis that had wide breadth but not enough depth to it. Using that many methods allowed us
a broad understanding of Google but no strong planning insights to write about. This problem
was exacerbated by our small word limit. As we added more analyses to our patch, our
allocated word limit for each one got smaller, resulting in less of our own thoughts on the topic.
We realized that our patch was not as in depth of an analysis as we would have liked, but we
thought that if we left anything out we would have been penalized. Much to our dismay, this
wasn’t the case and we received a lower score than if we had only used a couple methods.
Fortunately for us there was a silver lining. This proved to be a valuable learning
experience and we used the feedback to better prepare ourselves for the second patch. This is
an example of utilizing organizational control proactivity to learn from our past activities and
better prepare for future ones.
Patch 2: Leadership
Leadership
1
Google’s mission is to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful.
Company – Google. (n.d.). Retrieved December 5, 2014, from
https://www.google.com/about/company/
2
With all our technologies—from search to Chrome to Gmail—our goal is to make it as easy as possible
for you to find the information you need and get the things you need to do done. Our products and
services – Company – Google. (n.d.). Retrieved December 5, 2014, from
https://www.google.com/about/company/products/
3
Google Glass. (n.d.). Retrieved December 9, 2014, from https://www.google.com/glass/start/what-it-
does/
4
(n.d.). Retrieved December 9, 2014, from
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/18/corporations-google-should-not-sell-customer-
data

3. A number of Page’s leadership values have given evidence to his transformational
leadership qualities. A transformational leader operates on the basis of getting employees to
focus on a company’s well being rather than on their own interests. Page has done a
remarkable job in influencing and creating commitment among employees towards the vision of
having innovation be Google’s driving force in generating high performance.5
His method used
to gather followers has been intellectual stimulation: he’s always been one to challenge the
status quo and consequently encourages his employees to do the same.6
During his first stages
as CEO, Page, “made a series of moves to cut through the bureaucracy…and figure out ways
the company can act more like a start-up than an incumbent”7
. In other words, Page aimed at
moving away from a management system that focused on tradition and consistency to one that
focused on new ideas and flexibility (organic structure).
We found Page’s decision-making style to be more of a democratic one. Page gives his
subordinates the freedom to make decisions and only asks for very short updates on team
projects.8
Having decisions be more decentralized can result as an increase in the system’s
flexibility, which in turn can be beneficial for Google considering they have highly skilled and
insightful employees.
Employee Motivation
Everyone knows how awesome it is to work for Google. Their philosophy on employee
satisfaction is “To create the happiest, most productive workplace in the world”. In fact, it was
named best place to work in 2014 by Fortune Magazine9
(the 5th time). They try to achieve this
by having great compensation, free food, indoor gyms, child day care, and more.10
According to
Herzberg’s dual factor theory11
, these quirky perks are called hygiene factors, and are extrinsic
motivators needed to prevent employee dissatisfaction. However, the reality is that many
Google employees are not satisfied enough with their work. In fact, the average tenure of a
Google employee is a startlingly low 1-year.12
This is possible because of a lack of motivators in
the Google work environment. The second part of the dual factor theory, motivators, are the
intrinsic component of work that keeps employees satisfied with their jobs and committed to the
company. We will analyze hygiene factors and motivators of the Google workplace to determine
if this is causing the problem of low employee loyalty.
Overall, Google has great hygiene factors. They’re used to advertising the Google
workplace and are one of the main reasons why it’s ranked as best place to work 2014. The
problem is that Google doesn’t provide nearly the same level of motivators. Some of the main
5
Dumenco, S. (2011). Is google's larry page already turning out to be a truly great CEO? Advertising
Age, 82(34), 20-n/a. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/894752502?accountid=28598
6
Liedtke, M. (2011, April 01) Google Founder Larry Page Must Prove He's Ready To Be CEO. Huffington
Post Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/01/google-founder-larry-page-
ceo_n_843794.htm
7
Efrati, A. (2011, Mar 26). At google, page aims to clear red tape. Wall Street Journal Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/858632747?accountid=28598
8
Page’s Leadership style
http://larrypage.weebly.com/larrys-leadership-style.html
9
Best Companies to Work For 2014. (n.d.). Retrieved 8 November 2014, from http://fortune.com/best-
companies/
10
Stewart, J. B. (2013, March 15). At Google, a Place to Work and Play. Business Day. The New York
Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/16/business/at-google-a-place-to-work-and-
play.html?_r=1
11
Carpenter, M., Bauer, T., & Erdogan, B. (2009). Principles of Management. United States: Flatworld
Knowledge.
12
Amazon, Google employees ranked as ‘least loyal’. (n.d.). Retrieved 8 November 2014, from
http://www.geekwire.com/2013/amazon-google-employees-ranked-least-loyal/

4. things that former Google employees had to say13
about why they left the company are the lack
of recognition and achievement for their work. Many felt that the work was not intellectually
stimulating, partly because the standard for Google employees is so high, leading to mundanity
for many. This lack of intellectual or interesting work deprives them of the feeling of
accomplishment and achievement that is so important to the type of people who work there.
Without the opportunity to do interesting or challenging work, employees don’t have any chance
to get recognition, preventing them from gaining positive reputation and possible promotion.
Increased responsibility is the only motivator that Google gets right. Because of the small start
up like project teams; each employee has more responsibility for projects. Because of the flat
organizational structure of the company, there is little availability for promotion, and the high
standard always means that there will be a multitude of equally qualified coworkers waiting
ahead of you for that position.14
If Google put nearly as much resources into their motivators as
they do their hygiene factors, they could improve employee satisfaction. This would lead to
higher motivation and drastically improved employee tenure. Even though Google calls itself
“the happiest, most productive place in the world”, they clearly lack the motivators to be so.
Stitching
We went into this patch with a lot more experience and confidence than we did with the
first one. This is because we used feedback from the first patch to determine what to improve
for increased performance. We learned to let our research determine the couple topics we focus
on, to write more of our thoughts for the analysis, and to use transitions to make sections more
cohesive. This worked well for us and our score reflected the better processes we used.
Unfortunately we had grammar errors and awkward phrasing which lowered our score.
When preparing to write the final paper, we discussed how important writing quality is and we
tried to identify and correct these mistakes.
Patch 3: Controlling/Strategic HR Management (615)
Controlling
Since Google’s launch in 1998, it’s grown incredibly fast. What started in a dorm room
quickly became a 358 billion dollar technology company.15
In fact, Google does everything fast
from web search to developing products that make our lives easier and more productive.
Unfortunately some of these products don’t survive as long as others and ultimately fail. One of
the reasons why Google does everything so fast is so it can fail faster and learn from its
mistakes. With a higher frequency of developing products and services, it can more quickly
ascertain what will succeed and what won’t. Using this knowledge, it learns what went wrong
and alters its process for the next product.16
In other words, Google uses outcome
organizational control proactivity to rapidly learn from its mistakes and improve itself. The key
benefit from this control method is opportunity recognition. By developing numerous creative
ideas it recognizes which opportunities are viable options to pursue. By using organizational
controls it also becomes more productive and efficient.
13
What is the worst part about working at Google? (2009). Retrieved 6 November 2014, from
http://www.quora.com/What-is-the-worst-part-about-working-at-Google
14
Michael Arrington. (2009, January 18). Why Google Employees Quit. Retrieved 8 November 2014,
from http://techcrunch.com/2009/01/18/why-google-employees-quit/
15
Google Inc. (n.d.). Retrieved December 9, 2014, from http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=GOOG
16
https://www.thinkwithgoogle.com/articles/8-pillars-of-innovation.html

5. Google’s long-term strategic control plan is to deliver new advertising technology.17
For
example, Google voice, YouTube Live and Google plus. Google wants to make search as easy
as possible. The major sectors of Google are advertising, search engine, and cloud computing.
It uses organizational controls to make products better than ever.
Strategic HR Management
Google’s HR, better known as “People Operations” (POPS for short), doesn’t fall behind
in the organizations uniqueness. Google’s POPS which is led by Lazlo Bock is built upon in
what Bock himself calls the, “three-thirds staffing model”. Essentially, the three-thirds staffing
model is made up of three functional groups in which each group plays a critical role in linking
strategy to talent in order to achieve its organizational goals.18
These groups are split into: 1/3 of
people with a traditional HR background, 1/3 with little to no HR experience, and the rest being
in a workforce analytics group.19
The analytics group is what generally proves what is done in
POPS and contributes directly to the organizations business results. All in all, Google’s notable
approach to managing people in the organization has resulted in capturing a talented workforce
where, on average, “each employee generates nearly $1 million in revenue and $200,000 in
profit each year”.20
How exactly then does Google go about in attracting the right workforce that adds an
overall value to the organization? Bock is quick to explain that Google seeks candidates who
match the organizations innovative culture. A right fit for Google would need to be comfortable
with role ambiguity, having intellectual humility, and bringing something new to the table.21
In
order to retain workers, Google has developed a “mathematical algorithm” that proactively
predicts which employees are at risk of leaving the company. This approach has generally
allowed POPS management in acting fast before the situation worsens and has also allowed
retention problems to become personalized.22
As another pointer, this approach seems to help
in answering what an employee may want: building networks or attaining more meaningful work.
Giving an employee want they want would be good for Google since they would retain valuable
human capital within the organization.
17
Deconstructing Google's Strategy: Will Google Eat Your Business Next? (n.d.). Retrieved December 2,
2014, from http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevefaktor/2013/05/23/featuredeconstructing-googlersquos-
strategy-will-google-eat-your-business-next/
18
Google's People Chief, Laszlo Bock, Explains How To Hire Right (2014)
http://www.forbes.com/sites/georgeanders/2014/10/21/googles-people-chief-laszlo-bock-explains-how-to-
hire-right/
19
Google's People Chief, Laszlo Bock, Explains How To Hire Right (2014)
http://www.forbes.com/sites/georgeanders/2014/10/21/googles-people-chief-laszlo-bock-explains-how-to-
hire-right/
20
How Google Is Using People Analytics to Completely Reinvent HR (2013)
http://www.tlnt.com/2013/02/26/how-google-is-using-people-analytics-to-completely-reinvent-hr/
21
Google's People Chief, Laszlo Bock, Explains How To Hire Right (2014)
http://www.forbes.com/sites/georgeanders/2014/10/21/googles-people-chief-laszlo-bock-explains-how-to-
hire-right/
22
Google's People Chief, Laszlo Bock, Explains How To Hire Right (2014)
http://www.forbes.com/sites/georgeanders/2014/10/21/googles-people-chief-laszlo-bock-explains-how-to-
hire-right/

6. Group Reflection & Big Question (929)
Group Reflection
Working for this project as a team, we learned from each other and had a better
understanding of the course materials. Different from a group, our team is relatively small, and
the outcome (project grade) and task (project) are dependent on everyone’s contribution. Our
common goal is to analyze Google by applying course materials and researching the company.
To achieve this, we created a team charter which includes norms, common goals and
expectations of the members when working together. It helped us in many ways, such as the
level of individual involvement in the whole process.
In addition, our diverse background increased our performance in brainstorming, writing
and decision-making. For instance, sometimes we were unsure of the patch contents. We
implemented the rational decision making model (create many alternatives in order to maximize
the outcome) to finalize the decision. We met as a team at least once before starting each
patch. Before the meeting, we read the requirements and did some related research. In the
meeting, we generated ideas, divided up workloads and set a deadline. The meetings were
helpful in the sense that they made sure we were on the same page, and all the ideas were
heard and discussed before writing. Since we have a small team, our decisions are made when
we all agree. This reduces the flaws of implementing the decision making model.
Moreover, we improved our teamwork and writing skills through time and feedback from
the professor. We had more productive meetings and a better performance after patch 1,
because we were bounded by our understanding of the rules and expectations. For example,
before patch 1 we didn’t do any preparation for group meetings and we tried to cover everything
briefly instead of going into depth. After reading the feedback, we adjusted our mind by focusing
on key points and went more in depth to analyze them in patch 2. In terms of team
effectiveness, each of us did research, shared with each other, and also edited each other’s
parts before submission. In addition, we finished early and got some feedback about the draft.
As a result, we had a better 2nd patch grade and we learned how everyone can contribute and
improve the result.
The Big Question
Considering our team a mini “organization”, the result shows that human beings can
achieve positive outcomes that benefit various parties through working together. In our case, the
beneficial parties are us (team members) and the professor, because the professor would know
if the concepts were clear to students when reading the patches.
From a corporation standpoint, a balance scorecard is normally used to create goals and
objectives in order to achieve its mission and vision. It includes multiple elements: customer,
internal process, financial performance, learning and growth. These elements imply that an
organization needs skilled people with different expertise to work together to achieve success.
When the elements are accomplished, various parties can benefit from the result, including the
environment. For instance, customers, employees, the company and the environment benefit
from a company that motivates employees and produces creative organic products that satisfy
its consumers. In this case, customers benefit from the product and employees benefit from
having satisfying work. If the product is good it will generate profits and the internal process and
financial performance are accomplished.
Furthermore, the argument of whether people can work together to achieve common
goals and also benefit self and others include the planet is also supported by Peter Drucker’s
article. He claims that an organization needs to measure its success from multiple dimensions.
Apart from examining the financial performance which benefits the company and shareholders,
a company has to grow and develop its employees to better their performance in the work
place. In addition, the company has to look at the results from outside. This means that a

7. successful company not only focuses on improving internally, but also makes positive impacts
externally. For example, customers are satisfied with the products, the products are
environmental-friendly and the public has a positive image of the company. The measurements
are important and when they are accomplished, it is obvious that various parties benefit from it.
Google is an example of such a company. It has many talented employees who work
together to provide sustainable products and services (cloud). In addition, it makes $1billion
worth of investments in renewable energy in three years23
. Moreover, it provides great
incentives (good pay, food, etc.) to employees mentioned in patch 2 and cares for consumers
which is shown by its mission. As a result, it is a Fortune 500 company that makes a huge profit
globally while making a positive impact on the world.
To conclude, we learned that people can work together to achieve positive outcomes
that benefit self and others, and also make profits. We analyzed Google’s structure in terms of
planning, organizing, leading and controlling by incorporating the course material. We found out
that Google’s success is not a coincidence. It follows the management principles discussed by
Drucker and the framework of the balance scorecard. It has a clear mission that is shared by
employees. Therefore, the work they do, the leadership style and employee treatments all align
on accomplishing the same goals and objectives. In addition, Google shows its care for things
other than making profits and creates a positive impact on the environment. All the above adds
value to the company overall. Hence, Google is a competitive organization in the industry.
23
Google-leading the way on renewable energy (Aug 5, 2013). Retrieved 7 December 2014, from
http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/google-renewable-green-energy