Homework answers / question archive / Ba 511 db Based upon this week’s required reading assignment and lecture, please pick two questions from the list below and begin a thread in the discussion section

Ba 511 db Based upon this week’s required reading assignment and lecture, please pick two questions from the list below and begin a thread in the discussion section

Business

Share With

Ba 511 db Based upon this week’s required reading assignment and lecture, please pick two questions from the list below and begin a thread in the discussion section. Remember that you are required to reply to a minimum of 2 other students’ posts whilst being active 4 days out of 7. Owing to the accelerated nature of the class, discussions need to start by Monday, Day 1 or Tuesday Day 2 at the latest. A minimum of 8 – 10 quality posts is required for the 4 of 7 in the weekly Discussion area of the weekly tab to earn full participation points. Discussions are to be posted to the Discussion area in each weekly section only. Messages posted in any other area including the “Groups” area will not count. 1. There are four aspects to the corporate entrepreneurial process: identifying and evaluating the opportunity, developing a business plan, determining the resources required, and starting and managing the venture. As a 21st Century Entrepreneurial Leader, how do you see these affecting your daily life and why? 2. Performance measurements systems communicate management priorities by signaling throughout an organization the expected outcomes that management has determined to be important. Why, as a 21st Century Entrepreneurial Leader, is this important? 3. Sustainability performance can often be improved if it is integrated into the performance evaluation system for all employees, teams, and business units. Why? 4. As a 21st Century Entrepreneurial Leader how can you use an environmental multiplier to drive performance? Weekly Reflection Please complete the following phrases: 1. This week the most important and interesting topic was 2. This week I was surprised by 3. This week I struggled with Please respond to the following items 1. Over the last week invested ____ hours to this course. 2. Over the last week I did the following to achieve the goals I developed for this course: a. b. c. 3. Over the last week I achieved the following goals that I established for the course: a. b. c. 4. Over the last week I realized that I will need to overcome the following hurdles to accomplish my goals and earn the grade I desire: a. b. c. 5. To help me achieve my goals and earn my desired grades I will need my instructor to help me with: a. b. c. 9-409-099 APRIL 24, 2009 BORIS GROYSBERG DAVID A. THOMAS ALISON BERKLEY WAGONFELD Keeping Google “Googley” (Abridged) Kim Scott, director of Google’s AdSense online sales and operations, just returned from one of Google’s quarterly meetings in 2008 and her mind was racing. The company was continuing to launch new products and services at a rapid pace, and it was hard to keep up with the innovation happening around her on a daily basis. Scott had started at Google during the summer of 2004. At the time the company had approximately 3,000 employees, and most were based at the company’s headquarters in Mountain View, California. In just four years, Google’s employee count had grown to over 17,000, and more than 40% were based outside of the U.S. Revenue growth was on an even faster trajectory, with $3.2 billion annual revenues in 2004 growing to a $20 billion run rate for 2008. Scott had pursued a variety of entrepreneurial roles since she graduated from Harvard Business School in 1996, and she joined Google because she was attracted to the innovative culture and the can-do attitude of everyone she met. She was hired to help plan and manage the growth of Google AdSense (“AdSense”), one of Google’s two major advertising services. Scott shared the business leadership with her functional counterparts in product management and engineering. Nearly all important decisions were made together as a leadership team. She explained, “Google is a fastmoving, consensus-based organization. I thought those were mutually exclusive qualities before I got here.” When Scott started at the company in 2004, she wondered if she would still be there in several years, as she had never been at the same company for more than three years in the past. Yet, now it was the middle of 2008, and she was pleased that Google still had the same entrepreneurial atmosphere it had when she started. Founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page and CEO Eric Schmidt established a culture that rewarded innovation and continuous improvement, and all job applicants were screened for “Googley” qualities that would enable them to thrive in such an environment. Some observers assumed that the increased size would inevitably lead to more bureaucracy, but Scott was pleased that employees throughout the company worked hard to keep potential negative byproducts of rapid growth to a minimum. As Scott walked past some young employees chatting in the courtyard, she reflected on what enabled Google to maintain its culture as the company kept doubling in size. She hoped she would still love working at Google in another four years and asked herself, “What else can we do to ensure that Google remains the same kind of entrepreneurial place that excited me in 2004?” ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Professors Boris Groysberg and David A. Thomas and Alison Berkley Wagonfeld, Executive Director of the HBS California Research Center, prepared the original version of this case, “Keeping Google ‘Googely,’” HBS No. 409-039. This is the abridged version of that case. HBS cases are developed solely as the basis for class discussion. Cases are not intended to serve as endorsements, sources of primary data, or illustrations of effective or ineffective management. Copyright © 2009 President and Fellows of Harvard College. To order copies or request permission to reproduce materials, call 1-800-545-7685, write Harvard Business School Publishing, Boston, MA 02163, or go to www.hbsp.harvard.edu/educators. This publication may not be digitized, photocopied, or otherwise reproduced, posted, or transmitted, without the permission of Harvard Business School. 409-099 Keeping Google “Googley” (Abridged) AdSense Organization The AdSense business was managed by the directors and managers of three functional groups: Kim Scott, director of online sales and operations (OSO); Brian Axe, product management director; and Joerg Heilig and Bhavesh Mehta, engineering directors. Gopi Kallayil, product marketing manager also contributed to the management of the business. Scott described the leadership team as a “mesh”; others described it as a matrixed structure. When asked “Who was in charge of AdSense?,” Scott answered with a smile, “Nobody.” As the director of online sales and operations, Scott was responsible for the sign-up, management, optimization and payments of AdSense partners. The product management team defined the features and functionality of the product and worked closely with Scott’s group to get customer input. Product management also worked closely with engineering, as the engineers translated the product specifications into software code. Marketing worked with both online sales and operations and product management to help identify customer needs and to increase customer awareness. Axe believed, “Our functional organization prevented business unit fiefdoms from developing around the company.” Scott was hired into her role in June 2004 by the vice president of online sales and operations, approximately one year after AdSense had been launched. Scott inherited a team of 90, the majority of which worked in the U.S. as account associates (“associates”) facilitating the sign-up of AdSense content sites and managing relationships with content publishers. Most associates interfaced with thousands of publishers, and Scott relied on the associates to gather customer insights that could be used to improve the AdSense business. Over the next four years, Scott added approximately 30 people to her team in the U.S., and another 80 people outside of the U.S, bringing her total team to 200. There were also approximately 100 people working on the AdSense business in Europe, Middle East and Africa region, but this group did not report directly to Scott. Scott could have hired faster, as AdSense revenues and the number of publishers grew over 500% during those three years, but she opted to keep the team “small and nimble.” Russ Laraway, director of online operations and one of Scott’s direct reports, explained Scott’s approach to adding headcount, “Kim didn’t want to over hire. When the hiring faucets were open, some went with buckets, but she went with teacups. Kim believed that keeping the team small would force us to innovate in how we managed the business. She pushes us to change our processes and use technology to automate our work. She wants us to deploy our resources in higher value ways.” Scott had eight direct reports who were collectively responsible for managing the current business and developing growth areas. Management Google was considered a “flat” organization particularly in its early years when some engineering managers had up to 50 direct reports. By 2006, the company started hiring more managers with experience, reducing the number of direct reports per manager. Scott Sheffer, director of online operations and another of Scott’s direct reports, commented, “Kim has hired a number of experienced managers in the last two years. People made the assumption that the managers would suffocate innovation, but that has not been the case.” Scott elaborated on Sheffer’s comments, “My philosophy is that middle management should challenge people to do more, not less. Management should lift the organization and make life more exciting.” However, there were parts of the organization, particularly in engineering, that have continued to maintain very flat organizational structures. Laszlo Bock, vice president people operations, explained, “We believe that we hire people who are well-intentioned, curious and aware, and most have the capacity to self-govern with the help of their peers.” 2 Keeping Google “Googley” (Abridged) 409-099 Even with more managers in place, Google had a loose organization structure. As Kallayil explained, “Google is a large organization, yet it continues to be very nimble without letting hierarchy, organizational structure, titles and levels get in the way of creativity and execution. Ideas are most important. Things get done through a common mission, shared goals, and personal responsibility. People are self-managed and self-motivated at every level.” Jason Warner, senior staffing manager added, “Google has a cultural aversion to top-down management.” Or as Roxana Wales, training and development manager explained, “Google employees don’t like to be told how to do something…this is seen as micromanaging. Most employees would prefer to figure out the best way to do something on their own. People would rather be mentored than managed.” In fact in a recent Google employee survey, 95% of respondents on Scott’s team believed their managers worked for them. Within the AdSense sales and operations team, Laraway described Scott as “someone that gives her employees a lot of leeway. She works with her team to figure out what needs to get done, and then she gets out of the way to let people execute.” Scott believed it was important to meet with employees in one-on-one meetings, and she tried to meet with all 90 people on her team individually at some point during the year. Decision Making Google’s decision-making style was often described as “consensus-oriented,” and decisions were typically discussed in meetings and via long email strings that outlined the pros and cons of various options. Suzie Dewey, a relatively new manager in AdSense, explained, “When I started at Google three years ago, we used to make decisions by having all the managers get in one room and talking them through. We still do that, but now the room may have 20 or more people who want to provide input.” Building consensus took time, and Scott often spent the majority of her work hours meeting with people in other functions to talk through decisions. She explained, “To do well at Google, you need to build consensus, but not let the process slow you down.” Within the AdSense team, Scott, Axe, Heilig, Mehta and Kallayil communicated frequently, often daily, on the management of the business. Some Google businesses paired one person from engineering with one person from the product side, and the two were designated to work together as a leadership team along with sales. Axe explained, “We work closely with Kim on decisions that impact AdSense customers, and we can typically reach agreement on our own. On occasion, we might escalate big decisions to the executive Google Product Strategy team, where the founders weigh in. The toughest decisions are the medium sized ones which are too small to escalate, but too big to just give in when there are differences of opinion.” For example, the sales team wanted certain “small fixes” to be implemented more quickly, without the burden of a cross-functional prioritization process. The cross-functional AdSense team discussed this problem, eventually reaching a compromise. Mehta explained, “The policies are designed to keep us from making mistakes that impact revenue, but we have to make sure the same policies don’t keep us from rolling out new products and features. People at Google mean well and they want the best solution. Anyone can appeal a policy if they don’t like it, and although we work towards consensus, we can usually move ahead if 80% of the decision-makers agree.” Innovation Creativity and innovation were considered core values at Google, and Google executives sought “continuous innovation” at every level of the company. In the 2005 Founder’s Letter, Page wrote, “We devote extraordinary resources to finding the smartest, most creative people we can and offering them the tools they need to change the world. Googlers know they are expected to invest time and 3 409-099 Keeping Google “Googley” (Abridged) energy on risky projects that create new opportunities to serve users and build new markets.”1 The company used both formal and informal mechanisms to encourage innovation, with incentives ranging from compensation to recognition to job improvement. In fact, Google engineers were encouraged to devote twenty percent of their time (one day per week) to work on anything they wanted. Some of Google’s newer products (e.g., Google Mail, Google News) originated during “twenty-percent time.” Managers were given discretion to offer “recognition awards” to employees demonstrating innovation. For example, one employee in Scott’s group received a recognition award for developing a way to improve work flow so that each CSR could handle more support requests each day. In 2004, Page and Brin introduced the “Google Founders’ Awards” which were substantial stock grants that were offered to teams doing “outstanding” work at Google. Some employees received stock grants from these awards that were eventually worth over $1 million. The founders designed these awards to attract, motivate and retain top talent.2 Jeff Huber, vice president of engineering, expanded, “Google’s awards provide a great way to help reinforce the kind of behavior we want to see throughout the company.” Other quarterly forums within the online sales and operations functional group included a day in which junior employees suggested ways in which management could make Google a better place. Scott also sponsored an activity called “core job palooza” during which managers spent time each quarter with entry-level employees to help come up with ways to improve their jobs. Scott’s philosophy was, “If you are feeling the pain of a repetitive task, figure out a way to fix it.” She expanded, “When I started, it took five minutes for us to approve a new publisher. Now it takes five seconds. Customer satisfaction went up, and it freed up employees to focus on other areas of the business. Innovation is just as important in our function as it is in engineering. In fact, in a recent employee survey over 90% of our team felt as if they were encouraged to be innovative in their jobs.” Kallayil believed that Google encouraged creativity as it related to work-life balance as well. He explained, “When I arrived at Google, I wanted to start a yoga practice for and by Googlers. I was encouraged to pursue my interests and it was even highlighted in my performance review.” Google employees often said they felt comfortable taking risks. Heilig expanded, “We are encouraged to offer up new ideas. The good ones will survive and the bad ones will die, but nobody gets in trouble for offering up ideas that don’t survive.” Employees believed failure was tolerated at all levels of the company. Laraway expanded, “I know it may sound like a cliché, but failure is really OK here.” Scott believed that it was better for employees to “ask forgiveness instead of permission.” She explained, “Everyone moves quickly, and the onus is on the naysayer to stop something.” Page and Brin encouraged engineers to take risks as well. Mehta explained, “We are told to move quickly, and if we fail, we can learn quickly and do it better the next time.” Managing the Potential Byproducts of Rapid Growth Google employees enjoyed the opportunities that came from the company’s ascent, but some Googlers also voiced concern over the potential cultural and organizational challenges that often accompanied rapid growth. Many Google employees had previously worked at other fast-growing companies where issues surfaced such as: bureaucracy, slow decision-making, lack of visibility and international consistency. Google employees spent time thinking about how to avoid these common attributes of large companies. 4 Keeping Google “Googley” (Abridged) 409-099 Avoiding Bureaucracy One of the biggest concerns was the potential for “creeping bureaucracy” stemming from an increase in policies and guidelines required to manage an international company of over 17,000 employees. Scott was on the lookout for what she and others perceived as unnecessary policies or meetings and invited members of her group to participate in a quarterly session she called “Avoiding Dilbertville.” (The name was in reference to a cartoon strip published by Scott Adams poking fun at the office life of a Silicon Valley engineer named Dilbert who worked out of a cubicle and did not seem to get much done.) Scott explained, “As we have grown, I sometimes think to myself, ‘Dilbert has entered the building.’ So I started these ‘bureaucracy buster’ meetings to keep things in check.” The meetings resulted in a new online tool designed and built by several OSO employees that provided an outlet to voice concerns. Google employees used the tool to share “incidents” and others commented and rated the incident on a scale from “Dilberty” to “Googley.” The submissions were gathered into actionable items, and employees signed up to be bureaucracy busters for one or more problems that they were committed to solving. Scott hoped that the Avoiding Dilbertville meetings and new tool would also help address the concern that some employees may no longer feel “special” as the company continued to grow. Maintaining Rapid Decision-Making Google employees also noted that the consensus decision-making style could become more challenging, particularly when decisions needed to be made across multiple locations. Wales explained, “Managers work hard to get buy-in from all the different people affected by a decision. This can take a long time, particularly when scheduling meetings across time zones. Sometimes it seems that all of the consensus-building...