Google Inc.’s Organizational Psychology
Introduction
In the modern globalization of the business
environment, work psychology faces numerous
challenges. As there is increasingly more
accountability and expectations from firms, work
psychology can be applied to such issues as cross-
cultural interaction, staff support, competent
management, and the workplace environment among
others. (Sutton, 2015).
The following report will focus on the aspect of talent
management on a case study example of the tech giant
Google. Theoretical background will be provided,
indicating numerous methods that talent can be
measured, identified, recruited, and retained. The
information will then be applied to Google’s
experiences with employee recruitment and retention,
with further recommendations provided and analyzed
within the context of talent management.
Organizational psychology plays a critical role in the
effectiveness of a firm to find candidates which are
able to demonstrate high performance on the job while
fitting into the workplace culture, thus a complex talent
management framework and multi-layered hiring
practices should be introduced for the best outcomes.
Theoretical Background
Measuring Talent
From a business perspective, success depends on
having competent and innovative employees at the
right time. An Organization must attract, develop and
retain talent, using the human capital within the
business to maximize competitive advantage (Collings
& Mellahi, 2009). Talent is considered to be an
indication of how good an individual is at their job
which must be measured through some means. Bartram
(2005) suggests that instead of measuring talent, a
criterion-based approach should be used that most
effectively predicts meaningful behavior.
Competencies, or specific qualities that an
Organization desires in potential employees can be
evaluated during recruitment through questionnaires
and psychometric tests. These competencies can
include aspects such as leadership, cooperation,
presentation, analysis, creativity, Organization,
adaptation, and enterprising among others that can be
beneficial to employees in various positions within an
Organization (Bartram, 2005).
A variety of methods and tests have been developed by
vocational psychologists over the years to measure
talent. These include standardized self-assessment
tools, reflection exercises, performance-potential
matrices, the Wechsler individual achievement test,
and the Self-Regulation and Concentration Test among
many others. Even specific HRM-developed IQ tests
have been used for analytical selection procedures.
Each test and measurement has its benefits and
limitations in measuring the complex and abstract
concept of talent. It is recommended to combine
instruments that can measure innate ability, systematic
development, motivation, and interests to provide a
holistic overview of a candidate. Furthermore,
introducing varying in terms of measurement
approaches, such as standardized or open-ended tests,
can improve evaluation. Multisource assessments can
help to reduce bias in the already subjective talent-
identification process (Nijs, Gallardo-Gallardo, Dries,
& Sels, 2014).
Identifying Talent
Talent manifests itself through excellent performance
results which many HR managers agree is the best
measure. However, there are two underlying
components of talent – ability and the affective
element. This suggests that employees who are not
demonstrating excellence but have the ability to do so
can be managed towards the discovery of their innate
talents through proper motivation and guidance
towards specific activities. Innate ability may be
present in some individuals, while others thrive
through systemic development in a particular set of
skills or knowledge. Therefore, talent identification
practices must focus not only on talent that has already
been displayed in a previous Organizational setting but
on employees who demonstrate a potential for different
or bigger roles in the future. Talent is a multi-layered
concept and identification based on performance scores
alone is ineffective (Nijs et al., 2014).
The biggest emphasis in talent management is selection
and recruitment. Most Organizations and departments
have explicit protocols to identify the best candidates
based on their biographical data such as background,
education, and work experience (Thunnissen, 2016).
During the selection process, recruiters are seeking
individuals that not only have excellent technical
competence in their field but also a high degree of
flexibility, adaptability, and functioning in complex
environments (Hurn, 2014). Recruiters can use a wide
range of methods to evaluate candidates such as
structured and unstructured interviews and the use of
factual and testimonial references which have their
benefits and limitations. Psychometric tests may be
introduced at later stages of the selection process to
assess employees for cognitive and sensory ability or
measures of personality. Finally, some Organizations
may direct candidates to assessment centers or asked to
provide a work sample, both of which provide
evidence of performance capabilities.
Developing and Retaining Talent
Once employees are recruited, it is vital to develop
talented workers and ensure that they are retained by
the company. A standardized set of measures helps
managers to track changes within and between
employees to determine performance or a need for
improvement. Individualized measures can also be
introduced by providing specific objectives to
individual employees that they can use to improve
performance. Some managers attempt to make
performance comparisons, using tools such as
employee rankings or 360º appraisals. In a highly
competitive business climate, it is crucial for firms to
understand who their key talent is and develop strong
strategies to incentivize these employees as well
monitor their development beyond traditional
performance reviews (Harvard Business Review, n.d.).
A study of successful companies, particularly during
economic booms, demonstrated that retaining talent is
closely interconnected with employee development.
Providing education opportunities or training and skill
development helps to improve individual competencies
in employees. By focusing on individual strengths and
improving weaknesses, an employee can be groomed
in an optimal learning environment to take on new
positions or leadership roles. This is a common activity
within talent management known as succession
planning which creates a growth and promotion plan in
combination with skill development to ensure that an
employee remains with the company. Retaining
employees can also be done by building the corporate
brand, as the quality and popularity of a company can
increase the perception of its value. Since switching
jobs is inherently a high-risk activity, employees will
be less likely to leave a quality brand, but rather choose
to invest their time and career with a high-profile
employer (Boštjančič & Slana, 2018).
Google Case Study
The case study outlined several issues that Google
faced in its human resources department and talent
acquisition attempts. The primary problem was the
company’s recruitment and talent identification
process. Google became popular for the puzzle-like
questions asked during interviews which were meant to
demonstrate innovativeness and creative thinking as
well as a unique problem-solving process. However,
data analysis on employees demonstrated that success
during interviews had very little impact on the
subsequent performance of employees in their specific
job positions. Further attempts to introduce more
quantitative selection criteria such as university grade
point average showed that this also had little relevance
to success at the company or effective performance
(Sutton, 2015). Google was faced with the issue of how
to reform its recruitment and talent acquisition process
to hire employees that would do well the available jobs
while matching the company’s strive to hire innovative
thinkers.
Another issue that Google faces is extremely low
retention rates for the industry. The case study states
that the median tenure at Google was just over one
year, while other Fortune 500 companies averaged at
3.6 years (Sutton, 2015). This is despite Google’s
popularity, the fourth largest median salary, and an
incredible amount of employee perks making the
company one of the best to work at for many years.
Google’s retention efforts have been labelled as
insincere (such as providing perks to promote long
working hours) and outright illegal, suggesting that
there is an agreement with other major tech companies
to prevent talent poaching. This is an indication that
retention practices require significant improvement at
Google that would do more to increase tenure.
After data that identified that its initial talent
acquisition and identification techniques were flawed,
Google sought to reform its hiring practices and
interview process. The hiring process now follows a
semi-structured design where candidates are sought out
by a temporary recruiter who is hired to expand
outreach for the company and guide candidates through
recruitment. The candidates are then followed up on
my phone and an on-site interview. Candidates are
assessed based on competencies established by the
company, which include leadership, role-related
knowledge, problem-solving skills, and comfort with
ambiguity and teamwork. Interviewers can vary,
ranging from HR managers to potential co-workers.
The final decision is made by people not involved
during the interview process to eliminate potential bias,
creating an objective approach based on available
information on the candidate and interviewee
recommendations (Sutton, 2015). Google seeks to
combine a scientific and artistic approach to candidate
selection, a strategy that is far more enhanced and
comprehensive than the previous approach that Google
utilized.
Google also attempted to improve retention rates by
building upon what makes the company unique as well
as focusing on employee development. The company
offers and continues to expand its range of employee
amenities and perks, ranging from free food, gyms, and
relaxation area to in-house healthcare and coverage of
many expenses that workers may have. Furthermore,
Google has invested in a strategy of employee training,
giving employees the opportunity to teach each other
new skills or cover the costs of further education.
Overall, the company has focused on creating a
binding interpersonal culture in the Organization that
supports a common mission, transparency and equality,
and the ability to voice concerns directly to the firm’s
leadership (Sutton, 2015).
The case study suggests that based on evidence that the
issue of hiring seems to have been more effectively
addressed. The process is more holistic and
comprehensive nowadays, focusing less on specific
protocols such as education or the ability to solve
puzzles, but rather on examining candidate
competencies and attempting to eliminate bias. Talent
acquisition is more personable, guided, and thorough,
ensuring that candidates are successful for the position
that they are applying for or elsewhere in the company.
In terms of retention, Google continues to struggle
despite its strategies for both employee satisfaction and
career development. The case study suggests that this
is an indicator that hiring practices are still inefficient
at the company and employees are lacking the
motivation or purpose to remain in their positions.
Recommendations
The theoretical background of the literature applied to
the Google case study shows that some issues
regarding hiring practices and talent acquisition at the
company still need to be addressed. First, the company
should improve its recruitment strategy. A
recommendation would be to leverage its brand name
and online presence for innovative talent acquisition
globally. Many information technology firms in recent
years have begun to rely on social networking sites as
part of an organized HR strategy, allowing for talent
sourcing as well as reinforcing a stronger relationship
for potential recruits and existing employees. Social
networking allows for ease of recruitment and
selection, basic pre-employment checks, and a
preliminary evaluation of employee character and
relations (Nayak, Bhatnagar, & Budhwar, 2017). This
can be used to replace the temporary recruits that
Google currently hires who are contracted and do not
share the same passion for the company, potentially
biasing candidate searches.
The labor market and human capital are unique in that
it is a two-sided match where the company and the
employee must agree to an employment relationship,
and both should have a clear understanding of each
other’s needs and preferences to make the union
effective. However, often facts are misrepresented, and
human capital is subject to a level of moral hazard. A
misjudgment of an employee’s knowledge, skills, or
style of work can lead to costly hires, poor retention
rates, and a negative workplace environment (Brymer,
Molloy, & Gilbert, 2013). The troublesome history of
Google’s hiring practices combined with low retention
rates suggests that the company is mismatching
candidates to their job positions by failing to properly
identify and measure talent. Literature suggests that
better talent identification and measurement techniques
can significantly benefit this endeavour.
The recommended practices that hire candidates to fit
both the Organization and the job will be beneficial for
creating a culture that is full of self-motivated and
committed employees. The suggested approach focuses
on developing talent rather than just acquiring it.
Through this model of screening for personality
attributes and molding employees into future leaders, a
competitive advantage in talent management can be
achieved by Google (Beaver & Hutchings, 2005).
It would be recommended for Google to reform its
hiring practices and human capital framework for
better talent lifecycle management with the hopes to
improve retention. Instead of focusing on hiring just
the most capable candidates, more attention should be
given to their long-term fit within a company. More
effort should be dedicated to onboarding talent for
them to become acculturated within the Google
workplace culture and not want to leave. However, the
focus should not be just on new candidates for IT
positions, but on reforming performance management
and talent investment in the HR department. It is vital
to optimizing human capital investments to avoid
costly short-term hires. Furthermore, identifying
leaders who specialize in talent investment should be
brought on to the company. Therefore, the framework
focuses on all aspects of talent management, from
recruitment and acquisition to development and
retaining (Schiemann, 2014).
However, there may an expectation of some drawbacks
to the recommended changes. Since they fall in line
with more traditional HR practices that ensure structure
and conformity, it may have a negative effect of
dampening innovation and attracting less “raw talent”
employees. Furthermore, hires that are based on a
cultural fit can impede diversity that damages core
performance in the long run since attempting to hire
candidates for high-performance teams which are all
single-minded and focused on a mission may result in
issues when encountering any issue that require unique
and free-willed minds (Hartung, 2015). Therefore, the
recommendations should be taken into a consideration
that they offer enough change to improve efficiency
but to not drastically modify Google’s innovative and
forward-thinking work culture.
Other firms can benefit from implementing the
recommendations to some extent. Organizational
psychology in the modern era suggests that for
effective talent acquisition and retention, appropriate
company cultures must be created while also being
able to ensure a professional workplace. Companies
are struggling to reform their HR practices in the new
millennial culture and attract talent which impacts their
bottom line (Graen & Grace, 2015). Furthermore,
many tech companies are struggling with hiring issues
such as diversity, lacking racial minorities and women
in the primarily white male sector. It is an issue that is
deeply rooted, but many attribute it to biased hiring
practices as many diverse candidates are rejected for
not having the right characteristics or professional
experience (McGee, 2016). Google and other
companies which have relied on interviews and CVs
require a massive change to their talent acquisition and
retention frameworks which these recommendations
focus on.
Conclusion
In the conclusion of this report, it is evident that talent
is a complex component and its management plays a
significant role in hiring and retention practices for the
largest firms in the global economy. The traditional
definition of talent is challenged by breaking it down
into components of ability, development, motivation,
and interest. It is also noted that there are numerous
possibilities to measure and identify talent to find the
best fit for one’s organization. Google made the error
in its hiring practices and culture to attract strong
candidates that were not the best fit for the company,
individual job positions, or workplace culture. Even
after making significant changes to the hiring process,
the company continues to experience poor retention
rates and some level of performance ineffectiveness. It
is recommended to overhaul the talent management
framework to improve identification and matching
techniques to find the perfect candidates.
References
Bartram, D. (2005). The Great Eight competencies: A
criterion-centric approach to validation. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1185-1203.
Beaver, G., & Hutchings, K. (2005). Training and
developing an age-diverse workforce in SMEs.
Education + Training, 47(8/9), 592-604. Web.
Boštjančič, E., & Slana, Z. (2018). The role of talent
management comparing medium-sized and large
companies – Major challenges in attracting and
retaining talented employees. Frontiers in Psychology,
9, 1750. Web.
Brymer, R. A., Molloy, J. C., & Gilbert, B. A. (2013).
Human capital pipelines. Journal of Management,
40(2), 483-508. Web.
Collings, D. G., & Mellahi, K. (2009). Strategic talent
management: A review and research agenda. Human
Resource Management Review, 19(4), 304-313.
Graen, G., & Grace, M. (2015). Positive industrial and
organizational psychology: Designing for tech-savvy,
optimistic, and purposeful millennial professionals’
company cultures. Industrial and Organizational
Psychology, 8(03), 395-408. Web.
Hartung, A. (2015). How HR ‘best practices’ kill
innovation.Forbes. Web.
Harvard Business Review. (n.d.).Taking measure of
talent. Web.
Hurn, B. J. (2014). The challenges facing international
HRM in an increasingly globalised environment.
Industrial and Commercial Training, 46(7), 371-378.
Web.
McGee, S. (2016). Why are ‘innovative’ tech
companies still struggling with diversity?The
Guardian. Web.
Nayak, S., Bhatnagar, J., & Budhwar, P. (2017).
Leveraging social networking for talent management:
An exploratory study of Indian firms. Thunderbird
International Business Review, 60(1), 21-37. Web.
Nijs, S., Gallardo-Gallardo, E., Dries, N., & Sels, L.
(2014). A multidisciplinary review into the definition,
operationalization, and measurement of talent. Journal
of World Business, 49(2), 180-191. Web.
Schiemann, W. A. (2014). From talent management to
talent optimization. Journal of World Business, 49(2),
281-288. Web.
Sutton, A. (2015). Work psychology in action.
Basingstoke, United Kingdom: Palgrave Macmillan.
Thunnissen, M. (2016). Talent management. Employee
Relations, 38(1), 57-72. Web.
