Order ID:89JHGSJE83839 | Style:APA/MLA/Harvard/Chicago | Pages:5-10 |
Instructions:
Managing a Google Staffing Agency
Task Assigned:
Case Study on Google
It receives almost 3,000 applications per day. And it’s easy to see why. What more could an employee want than a massage every other week, onsite laundry, a swimming pool and spa, and free delectable all-you-can-eat gourmet meals?
Doesn’t that sound like the perfect job? Many people at Google, on the other hand, are demonstrating that all of those perks (and these are just a handful) aren’t enough to keep them there by leaving the firm. Yes, Google is making a lot of
money, one expert stated. Yes, there are a lot of smart people there. Yes, it is an excellent location to work. So, what’s the deal with so many people leaving?
For the past four years, Google has been ranked among Fortune magazine’s top five “best businesses to work for,” with two of those four years ranking first. But make no doubt about it.
Google executives decided to offer all of these fantastic perks for several reasons: to attract the best knowledge workers it can in a fiercely competitive, cutthroat market; to assist employees in working long hours without having to deal with
time-consuming personal chores; to show employees that they are valued; and to ensure that Googlers (the term for employees) stay with the company for many years. However, a handful of Google employees have jumped ship and left the
company, foregoing these excellent perks in order to strike out on their own.
Sean Knapp and two coworkers, brothers Bismarck and Belsasar Lepe, for example, devised a method for dealing with Web video. They quit Google, or, as one individual put it, “expelled themselves from paradise” to establish their own
business. Google wanted the threesome and their project to stay after they departed the firm. Google offered them a “blank check,” but the trio realized that they would have to do all of the legwork, and Google would control the product. So
they set out in search of the thrills of a start-up.
It would be easy to dismiss this as a one-time occurrence. However, this is not the case. The same has been done by other smart Google employees. Indeed, so many of them have left that an informal alumni club of ex-Googlers turned
entrepreneurs has arisen.
the first question
Google does a lot for its employees, but not quite enough to keep some of them. What does this situation tell you about employee motivation, based on what you’ve learned from researching various motivation theories?
Question 2: What do you think Google’s main issue is in motivating its employees?
Question 3: How would you keep a team of Google employees engaged if you were in charge of them
Managing a Google Employees Team
RUBRIC |
||||||
Excellent Quality 95-100%
|
Introduction
45-41 points The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned. |
Literature Support 91-84 points The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned. |
Methodology 58-53 points Content is well-organized with headings for each slide and bulleted lists to group related material as needed. Use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. to enhance readability and presentation content is excellent. Length requirements of 10 slides/pages or less is met. |
|||
Average Score 50-85% |
40-38 points More depth/detail for the background and significance is needed, or the research detail is not clear. No search history information is provided. |
83-76 points Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is little integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are included. Summary of information presented is included. Conclusion may not contain a biblical integration. |
52-49 points Content is somewhat organized, but no structure is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. is occasionally detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met. |
|||
Poor Quality 0-45% |
37-1 points The background and/or significance are missing. No search history information is provided. |
75-1 points Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is no integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are not included in the summary of information presented. Conclusion does not contain a biblical integration. |
48-1 points There is no clear or logical organizational structure. No logical sequence is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects etc. is often detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met |
|||
You Can Also Place the Order at www.collegepaper.us/orders/ordernow or www.crucialessay.com/orders/ordernow |
Managing a Google Employees Team