Summary
Since its inception a decade ago, Google has accomplished much as a technological powerhouse. The firm evolved from a senior thesis to a major international information technology market participant. The firm has been well-recognized for its pioneering spirit since its earliest days. Google’s core offering is a search engine, but the corporation is also at the forefront of many other cutting-edge industries (Stewart et al., 2018). The company’s success may be attributed to its ability to recruit and retain talented employees. The company’s pay plan is the focus of this research report. This paper will analyze how Google’s pay strategy affects the company’s ability to attract, engage, and retain top personnel. Compared to its rivals, Google’s pay policy could be more innovative (Jaworski et al., 2018). Google has the financial resources and the courage to experiment with new methods of employee remuneration, giving it an edge over other companies.
At its core, Google’s pay plan is not unlike those of other firms. Salary, bonuses, stock options, and perks are part of the overall remuneration package. The brilliance of Google’s pay structure lies in its use of standard compensation components in novel ways to further the company’s objectives. The organization leverages its data processing resources to increase the effectiveness of the benefits (Saputra & Mahaputra, 2022). A salary is the foundation of any pay structure. As was said, the organization is adopting wage increases, making it the highest-paid organization in its industry. The corporation is now aiming to set the standard for compensation in the industry.
There are monetary and non-monetary benefits for employees at Google. Google thinks it is important to continuously reward its staff to keep them dedicated to the company’s mission. Google’s philosophy is that if it creates the most comfortable and productive office environment possible, its workers will be more dedicated to their jobs (Werner & Balkin, 2021). Therefore, Google provides several perks to its staff to maintain a positive and productive workplace. Those who work at Google are treated to complimentary meals every day. In addition, the corporation ensures that food is within easy reach of all workers. Additionally, Google provides its staff with free transportation and washing facilities (Jaworski et al., 2018). A concierge service is available for those who do not have time to conduct errands.
Furthermore, Google’s remuneration structure is performance-based since the company’s detailed performance records make it simple to identify which workers should be rewarded. The Orkut website is an instance of performance-based perks. Orkut was an effort by Google to capitalize on the popularity of social networking sites. The person who created the platform also gave it its name Orkut. By giving the app the employee’s name, Google showed it recognizes and appreciates excellence in the workplace (Pulakos et al., 2019). Google also uses the layout of its offices to inspire its staff. The corporation provides a variety of services to reduce stress for workers. According to Google, taking care of one’s own business outside of the office might harm one’s productivity (Werner & Balkin, 2021). For this reason, Google provides its workers free transportation, so they do not have to worry about the cost of getting to and from work (Werner & Balkin, 2021). In addition, Google has laundry rooms for its staff to use. The business also provides daycare centers for working moms. Additionally, to these perks, the corporation provides free lunch and provides convenient access to snacks for all workers. Collectively, these steps address some of the most critical issues facing its staff. The staff will now have more time to focus on their tasks.
Career and Performance Management of Employees
Management and employees are in constant dialogue about how to raise productivity. Overemphasizing one aspect of your company’s performance management system, such as performance evaluations and measurements, might have unintended consequences. Disengagement from work may result from inefficient performance management methods and practices (Niati et al., 2021). This may have unintended consequences for the culture of your company. It may also lead to lower staff productivity and less income for your firm. Companies in the United States are now experiencing what has been nicknamed “The Great Resignation,” an exodus of workers looking for better compensation, more flexible hours, and more attractive career advancement opportunities (Jaworski et al., 2018). According to the BLS, 4.4 million Americans filed resignation letters in April 2022, prompting businesses to scramble to create incentives to keep talented workers (Kartadjumena & Rodgers, 2019). Google has one of the most cutting-edge human resource strategies in Silicon Valley, if not the globe; it updated its performance management procedures to keep up with the competition.
Self-evaluations are the first stage in Google’s performance assessment process because the company understands the value of introspection. These findings are then matched to the employee’s 360-degree evaluation (Kartadjumena & Rodgers, 2019). By contrasting one’s viewpoint with others, one might gain insight into their performance flaws and strengths, leading to enhanced productivity. In light of this, self-evaluations should constitute an integral element of any effective performance management strategy. In general, your staff’s interpersonal skills, output, and effectiveness would benefit from a healthy dose of self-awareness training. Everyone knows that 360-degree feedback is quite helpful. This kind of criticism is helpful since it offers a comprehensive view (Werner & Balkin, 2021). The difficulty is that it may be exhausting to gather feedback, both for the person being evaluated and the coworker doing the evaluation. As a result of streamlining its yearly 360-degree feedback process in 2013, Google was able to overcome this obstacle. Bock reports in Work Rules that 75% of participants found the input helpful after implementing these modifications (Kartadjumena & Rodgers, 2019). Before 2013, Google employees’ peers were requested to evaluate them by noting three to five of the employees’ strengths and three to five of the employees’ weaknesses (Werner & Balkin, 2021). At this point, one will be asked to choose only one thing that person should do more of and one thing that person should do differently. The adjustment had a more significant influence on the findings. The assessors will have a deeper understanding of their findings and be able to target areas for improvement more precisely if they narrow their attention to a single dimension rather than try to tackle too many at once.
Google’s previous 360-feedback system required the rated person to compile a list of achievements in a single field on a template. The staff were given this form and asked to evaluate the boss according to several criteria (Jaworski et al., 2018). Employees now detail projects worked on, their part in those initiatives, and their achievements on the updated 360-degree feedback form created by Bock’s team. For brevity’s sake, each project description may only be 512 characters long. Once respondents have the template, they may grade the employee depending on how well they did on each project rather than relying on a global assessment of their performance. Since workers could specify when the incident occurred, the feedback was much more useful. One of Google’s new tweaks is increasing the quality of search results by including only relevant information. In order to gauge people’s level of familiarity with the project, they asked for ratings (Jaworski et al., 2018). Those who need to be made aware of the employee’s true contribution are less likely to respond randomly, which is helpful.
References
Jaworski, C., Ravichandran, S., Karpinski, A. C., & Singh, S. (2018). The effects of training satisfaction, employee benefits, and incentives on part-time employees’ commitment. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 74, 1-12. Web.
Kartadjumena, E., & Rodgers, W. (2019). Executive compensation, sustainability, climate, environmental concerns, and company financial performance: Evidence from Indonesian commercial banks. Sustainability, 11(6), 1673. Web.
Niati, D. R., Siregar, Z. M. E., & Prayoga, Y. (2021). The effect of training on work performance and career development: The role of motivation as intervening variable. Budapest International Research and Critics Institute (BIRCI-Journal): Humanities and Social Sciences, 4(2), 2385-2393. Web.
Pulakos, E. D., Mueller-Hanson, R., & Arad, S. (2019). The evolution of performance management: Searching for value. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 6, 249-271. Web.
Saputra, F., & Mahaputra, M. R. (2022). Effect of job satisfaction, employee loyalty and employee commitment on leadership style (human resource literature study). Dinasti International Journal of Management Science, 3(4), 762-772. Web.
Stewart, C., Nodoushani, O., & Stumpf, J. (2018). Cultivating employees using Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. In Competition Forum American Society for Competitiveness,16(2), 67-75. Web.
Werner, S., & Balkin, D. B. (2021). Strategic benefits: How employee benefits can create a sustainable competitive edge. The Journal of Total Rewards, 31(1), 8-22. Web.
