Specifications and technical requirements overview

SUCCESS

One obvious difference in how success is defined at different firms is the different mission of profit and not-for-profit firms. Profit-driven firms define success as being 'in the black,' while not-for-profits and charities define their goals in terms of achieving a particular social mission, although they must remain solvent. Another difference in definitions of success exists between publically-traded corporations, which define success in terms of making a profit for their shareholders, and firms with non-publicly traded shares concentrated in the hands of the business owners. These owners might define success more in terms of building a reputation over the long-term, rather than generating short-term revenue. The difference between long and short-term success may vary between even for-profit businesses. Some businesses desire to show high rates of returns to attract investors, while other firms focus on research and development to create profitable new products to sell in the future. And still other firms also define success in terms of money donated to charity, new discoveries generated by the firm's R&D, or even simply to spread knowledge like Google.

Measuring the success of the firm is partially defined by achieving its objectives, but survival must also be a measure of success, regardless of the firm's personal definition of this elusive quality. An idealistic firm that cannot remain solvent is of little use to anyone, and a firm that generates quick profits in an unethical manner like Enron will also have little ability to survive.

Q2. Google uses a 'carrot' rather than a 'stick' approach when motivating employees. It makes work such an attractive place that employees do not want to leave. Google creates a cohesive workplace culture, so that employees have almost no need to go home, even to do their dry cleaning. It also disdains hierarchy, which encourages all employees to make suggestions that can improve productivity at the company. Encouraging employees to do independent research also fosters innovation and growth. But it allows the company to own these new ideas, rather than drives employees away to start their own firms. Making money without being evil, being serious without needing to wear a suit, and taking a global focus are all part of the company's mission. Google promotes discovery and innovation as a search engine and as a company but it also serves its need to survive in a cutthroat corporate world.

Q3. Of course, the perception of a company's 'truth in advertising' regarding its recruiting propaganda will largely be determined by the relative happiness of the employee. However, a technologically-driven company like Intel seems justifiable in claiming the need to recruit talented people to maintain its continued success. Without the best people, innovation and remaining a market leader is impossible.

Yet although the Intel website is not disingenuous, it seems less explicit about its corporate culture than Google's website. Google paints a picture of a workplace in which employees eat lunch side-by-side with executives and have a key role in defining and shaping their 'pet' projects. Intel's website has more unsubstantiated mission statements about innovation than Google's. Regarding diversity issues, the profiles of all of the individuals featured on the 'Life at Intel' section of the website (http://www.intel.com/lifeatintel/profile/) are Caucasian, which does not necessarily imply the company is discriminatory, although given the size of Intel it is worth questioning why a more balanced demographic sampling was not used.