Workforce Planning and Company Culture at Google

Introduction

Human resources management has been recognized as an essential aspect of organizational success for many decades, with theories on motivation and worker satisfaction as they relate to productivity forming key elements of both academic and practical frameworks. Almost any organization of substantial size has a dedicated human resources officer or department responsible not only for the basic practicalities of hiring and terminating employees as necessary, but also for the creation and implementation of programs addressing the organization's workforce on a variety of matters. Major concerns for most human resources departments include workplace fairness, safety and health procedures, and a variety of other issues that ensure the organization is meeting all legal and ethical requirements regarding its workforce — and that this workforce is properly motivated to perform individual tasks as productively as possible.

These issues, however, often overshadow a concern that is at once more mundane than many other human resources management topics yet also a profound and highly necessary consideration for any sizable organization. The issue of workforce planning — not simply controlling hiring and firing, but accurately predicting company needs and continually adjusting policy and operations to meet those needs — is often viewed simply as a by-product of other human resources management functions, rather than as an operation in its own right.

Organizations and intra-organizational teams and work groups that do not explicitly and directly account for workforce planning needs are left at a distinct disadvantage when it comes to ensuring adequate staffing while minimizing human resources costs (Kellagher 2010). Inadequate staffing leads to performance difficulties, lack of operational capacity, and ultimately to reduced output, reduced profitability, and increased strain on existing human resources (Kellagher 2010). Overstaffing, however, can be equally damaging to organizations by running up unnecessary costs that are not offset by increased profitability, productivity, or utility (Frauenheim 2009). Given the massive job losses in recent years and still-volatile employment figures, ensuring that human resource costs do not exceed their beneficial limits while maintaining adequate staff is a pressing concern for all organizations.

Google: An Overview

When it comes to the active planning and management of an organizational workforce in both the short and long terms, few companies compare to Google in terms of efficacy or the level of attention paid. Google's company culture has been the subject of much commentary and scholarship, and the company itself explicitly asserts that this culture is directly related to its needs for continued growth and current stability (Google 2010). An examination of Google's workforce planning practices is therefore very useful in analyzing and describing the methods by which attention to this aspect of human resources management can contribute to positive long- and short-term organizational outcomes.

In just over a dozen years of existence, Google managed to build itself into an Internet powerhouse, dominating web-based information searches and generating enormous amounts of revenue from its advertising model. This created generous returns for shareholders after the company went public in a relatively short period following its founding, and also enabled the company to grow enormously — from the two founders who were Google's only original employees to the more than sixteen thousand individuals worldwide that Google employed at the time of this writing (Google 2010; Workforce Management 2008). Much of the credit for this success must be attributed directly to the products Google developed — primarily its search function and advertising programs, though other related products also proved highly successful — but analysts and the company itself also attribute a great deal of Google's success to the individuals making up its workforce and to the company's overall human resources management style (Google 2010).

Before the theoretical implications and applications of Google's workforce planning policies can be more fully discussed, it is necessary to describe exactly what those policies are. Stories — almost entirely accurate — regarding the facilities and amenities Google provides to its employees make clear why the company topped Fortune's list of "Best Companies to Work For," but they do not really provide a picture of actual planning policies (Workforce Management 2008). Some of these policies, in fact, appear to run counter to Google's overall culture.

Google's Workforce Planning Practices

Enter the algorithm. According to Prasad Setty, the company's director of people analytics, "Our charter is to make sure that every people decision made at Google is made on the basis of data, not emotions" (Workforce Management 2008). To that end, the company reportedly uses an algorithm each month to determine which employees are likely to leave, and it uses the information generated by this algorithm to make hiring decisions — potentially factoring it into promotion and transfer decisions as well (Chapman 2009). A major limitation of this algorithm is that it can only utilize historical data to develop its predictions and cannot possibly account for every detail affecting decisions to stay with or leave the company; it is especially lacking in its ability to account for the individual and personal aspects of each employee's non-work life, which are significant factors in most decisions to leave one's employment (Chapman 2009).

That said, the use of this algorithm demonstrates a definite commitment to rigorous and ongoing workforce planning — something the company takes as seriously as financial planning, according to Setty and other company officers (Workforce Management 2008; Google 2010). The incentives Google provides its employees — on-site cafes, gyms, childcare centers, and a wide array of other amenities and perks — are all designed to encourage loyalty to the company, and the compensation it offers is also highly competitive (Google 2010). All of this is explicitly accomplished in an effort to maintain workforce stability while allowing for adjustment and restructuring as necessary.

Conclusion

Google no longer holds the number one spot on Fortune's "Best Companies to Work For" list, but it remains ranked quite highly. Ongoing workforce planning efforts designed to attract and retain talent will likely continue to bolster the company's reputation in the industry and as a model for corporations worldwide. Through accurate information gathering and careful analysis, as well as the ongoing application of findings and the continuing adjustment of predictive theories and tools, Google is leading the way in the realm of workforce planning.