Google Inc. research paper

MY CRITERIA

When deciding on major career decisions, such as choosing an employer, it is imperative for that employer to embody several features that meet your professional and personal preferences. One preference included in my criteria for an ideal company, is growth. Company growth and individual growth are two very important characteristics a company should encourage. Rather than simply growing in size, a company should also promote growth through product expansion and philosophy. As the company adapts to market and consumer needs, it avoids becoming obsolete and therefore gains an edge on its competitors. From a personal perspective, it is essential for the company to have an opportunity for the employee to grow with them as well. This creates a trusting relationship between employer and employee because it supports a commitment to encourage an individual’s need for change.

Secondly, a company should demonstrate a functional and positive working relationship with clients, suppliers, and employees. Establishing and maintaining a positive environment for everyone involved is key to the company’s success. Satisfied clients are more likely to return for more business and will often help the company gain new clients by giving good reviews. Maintaining good relationships with suppliers is also important because it will allow internal and external operations to flow more smoothly. Moreover, employers should focus on sustaining relationships with their employees. After all, a company’s success lies within the dedication and hard work of its employees. To show their appreciation, companies should offer benefits like health and dental insurance on top of employees’ salaries and bonuses.

The last important characteristic is a company’s location. I would prefer to work in a location within or close to a large city, rather than in a rural area. Additionally, a company that has multiple locations gives an employee the chance to travel and experience different aspects within the organization around the world. More locations can also offer extra job security by giving employees the option of relocating.

SWOT Analysis

Grant Thornton’s strengths lie within its diversified geographical presence, wide selection of services, and a strong presence in Asia Pacific. The company reports stable profits across 100 countries with networks of 121 interdependent firms and 30 international business centers (COMPANY PROFILE: Grant Thornton, 2013, p.5). Global presence combined with steady profits allow the organization to attract a broader scope of clients and reduce risks due to its strong global image. Grant Thornton’s variety of services also attracts numerous clients through assurance, advisory, tax, audit, financial management, IT, and performance management services. A large range of services allows the firm to provide cross selling opportunities in new and present-day markets. Moreover, Grant Thornton’s recent growth in Asia Pacific has generated an increase in revenue of $399 million in FY 2010 to $579 million in FY 2012. This caused an increase in the company’s overall revenue by 10.4% in FY 2012 compared to the previous year (COMPANY PROFILE: Grant Thornton, 2013, p.5).

The organization’s largest and most apparent weakness is its size compared to competitors. As a result, it is nearly impossible for Grant Thornton to compete with larger accounting and advisory firms like the Big Four. For instance, in FY 2012 Grant Thornton generated $4,182 million with an estimated 35,000 employees compared to Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, one of the Big Four firms, who reported $31,300 million with over 193,000 employees (COMPANY PROFILE: Grant Thornton, 2013, p.5). This places the firm at risk of potential acquisition by larger firms carrying more financial muscle.

Along with Grant Thornton’s strengths and weaknesses, the firm also has opportunities for expanding into new and existing markets and rapidly growing in these emerging markets. In recent years, Grant Thornton has placed its focus on industry target markets. In July 2012 Grant Thornton appointed new members in Hati and acquired FPA Group, a Poland provider of outsourcing services. In October 2012, new member firms were appointed in Africa and Dominican Republic. The company also formed new member firms from existing firms in Armenia, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan (COMPANY PROFILE: Grant Thornton, 2013, p.6). Development in these new markets will provide an opportunity for additional customer base and a future increase in revenues.

Intense competition, increasing regulation in government contracting, and a weak global economic outlook threaten Grant Thornton’s success. Grant Thornton operates in a highly competitive environment that is growing rapidly in additional competitors. This intense competition could wear down the firm’s market share and reduce profitability. The company is also exposed to risks regarding government contracting entities. Changes in government and political developments such as budget deficits and uncertainties, can cause price reductions in the firm’s services or termination all together. Another threat to Grant Thornton is the recent turmoil of the global economy. Global growth dropped to 3% in 2012 and dropped even further to 1.2% in 2013. Weak global economic growth coupled with economic and political uncertainties could potentially reduce the demand for services offered at Grant Thornton (COMPANY PROFILE: Grant Thornton, 2013, p.7).

MY OPINION

I like how Grant Thornton places importance on creating a great working environment for their employees. The firm offers an environment for employees to grow and develop their careers, while encouraging the importance of balancing your professional and personal life. Grant Thornton appears to truly care for their personnel’s wellbeing and strives to create meaningful bonds with each individual on a comforting and appreciative basis. I also like the abundance of locations Grant Thornton occupies. Having the opportunity to travel the world and experience different cultures through my career would be a dream come true. Although it appears to be one of Grant Thornton’s biggest weaknesses, I appreciate that the company is relatively smaller than its competitors because I feel it gives them more flexibility. Larger companies take much more time to incorporate major changes to the organization, whereas with a smaller company this process can happen much more quickly. One disadvantage of being significantly smaller than your competitors is the stability of the company. Job stability is very important to me and Grant Thornton’s significantly smaller size could result in a possible merger initiated by one of the larger, Big Four advisory firms.

CONCLUSION

Grant Thornton and Ernst & Young possess many of the same characteristics. Both companies are nationally and internationally based, offering an opportunity to travel to different places around the world. These firms also appear to value their employees in high respects through efforts to expand their personnel’s professional careers while encouraging the importance of their personal lives. Grant Thornton and Ernst & Young offer their employees remarkable benefits on top of fair salaries. Either company I chose to work for, would compensate their employees well. However, Ernst & Young has a bit more versatility due to its larger global position and expansion rate. Due to this, they may be able to give their employees better salaries, opportunities for career advancement, and higher organizational stability.

Perhaps the only real difference between Grant Thornton and Ernst &Young is the gap between company size and financial muscle. Ernst &Young is obviously much larger and more successful than Grant Thornton on almost all business aspects, but sheer size isn’t enough to sway an advantage. Both companies continue to propose satisfying job stability, professional and personal growth, and encourage healthy relationships with their employees. Due to the fact that the differences between both organizations is irrelevant in terms of my personal criteria, I would not be able to place one above the other. For this reason, I would enjoy working for both Grant Thornton and Ernst & Young.