In the January 2012 issue of Fortune magazine, Google topped the list for '100 best company to work for' (Fortune, January 2012). This was an improvement from 2011, when the company was ranked 4th on the same list (Fortune, January 2011). So the question here will be how did Google manage to top the list? Are they really the best company to work for? This research will be carried out to look for the reasons as to why Google is the best company to work in.
2. Objectives
This research aims to discover four objectives that will enable us to find out if Google is really the best company to work for. These four objectives are:
To explore the culture of Google (Singapore)
To examine manager-employee relationship at Google (Singapore)
To identify Google (Singapore) employees' performance management system
To explore the relationship between contract workers and full-time employees at Google (Singapore)
3. Methodologies
A case study on Google (Singapore) will be conducted via multi-method qualitative data collection. These two methods are ethnography and focus group.
3.1 Ethnography
This methodology gets the researcher into actual, real-life situations in the research field and to accurately comprehend the actual happenings and operations of the organisation (Mariampolski, 1999; Watson, 2011). A role of participant observer will be adopted by the researcher. This ensures that the researcher engages the organisational members, share their lives with them and use the same lingo as them (Gellner and Hirsch, 2001). Furthermore, this also enables the researcher to find out implicit meanings of behaviours of the employees (Mariampolski, 1999). In addition, this will also help the researcher to get access to information as "an organisational member" (Watson, 2011).
As a participant observer, the researcher must avoid "going native". If the researcher were to go "native", he will miss out the "critical external perspective" (i.e. not being able to carry-out a proper observation) (Flick, 2009). However, the researcher must also become a part of the organization on order to obtain insights from his research field (Flick, 2009). This means that he have to balance his role as both a "stranger" and an insider.
Moreover, ethnography focuses on the cultural and not the individual, whereby the entire organisation's population will be accessed, thus reliable data can be collected (Kelly and Gibbon, 2008). However, the researcher must have the discernment to differentiate the irrelevant data that he might have collected, filter them and not let them affect the research results (Kelly and Gibbon, 2008).
3.2. Interviews - Focus groups but not individual interviews
Focus groups are also known as group interviews. A moderator (can also be the researcher) will be needed to facilitate the discussion. The participants are able to give their own inputs, thus able to trigger and develop the thought-processes of their fellow participants (Marrelli, 2008). This gives depth to the responses, thus enabling the researcher to gain more insights about the research topic. Moreover, according to Patton (2002), respondents can also exercise "quality control" over the responses of their counterparts. This increases the credibility of the data collected (Flick, 2009). In this case, the information needed will be regarding Google's performance management system and relationships between managers and employees. In order to ensure that sufficient information is collected, the questions asked will be open-ended (i.e. not being restricted to only a "yes" or "no" response) (Engman Jr., 1992). (Refer to Annex A for questions.)
Apart from the advantage mentioned above, there are also other advantages of using this methodology. According to Marrelli (2008), firstly, a lot of information can be obtained within short period of time and at a relatively low cost. Secondly, new point-of-views and concepts can be discovered in the midst of the exchange among the respondents. Thirdly, confidential information that is not simply revealed via other means of data collection can be obtained. This will provide the researcher with more valuable information.
According to Marrelli (2008), despite the advantages, focus groups also have drawbacks. Firstly, it may not be easy to get the participants together at a certain appointed time as they each have their own schedule. Secondly, if the participants are employees that the organisation pays high salaries to, it can cost the firm quite a bit as these employees will be involved in the research process and not working.
Individual interview is not a chosen methodology because the data collected might be not enough for the researcher - insufficiency in the 'breath' of data collected (Stokes and Bergin, 2006). Moreover, participants in the focus group will more at ease while responding to questions that touch on more sensitive issues (i.e. some corporate information) as compared to them being interviewed individually (Newman, 2002). Furthermore, in the midst of conducting the sessions, the researcher will also be able to observe how the respondents interact with each other (Madriz, 2000). He might be able to obtain some useful data from this.
3.3. Interpretivism and inductive approach
The epistemological approach that this research will embrace is interpretivism. From the point of view of an interpretivist, the existence of one real world does not exist and that reality is made up by people's perceptions and their thought processes (Hudson and Ozanne, 1988). Moreover, groups and ideas are created in order for these people to comprehend their surroundings better (Hudson and Ozanne, 1988). Hence, in order for the researcher to find out what and how people perceive their environment and reality, he must take up the role of a participant-observer, as mentioned by Taylor and Bogdan (1984) (Hudson and Ozanne, 1988). This is in line with one of the methods that will be chosen - ethnography. Whereby, the researcher will get into the environment of the individuals that he wants to study and try to view things from the individuals' perspective.
Furthermore, for interpretivism approach, Verstehen is vital to start off the research as the researcher wants to comprehend what he observes and experienced (Hudson and Ozanne, 1988), for instance, understanding the culture of a particular organisation. Also, the interpretive approach is more relevant to researchers who are involved in studying on the topic of organisations and management (Prasad and Prasad, 2002). It answers questions that the traditional methodologies do not have the capabilities to answer (Prasad and Prasad, 2002). Moreover, this approach helps the researcher to better comprehend the "symbolic dimensions of organisational life" (Prasad and Prasad, 2002).
The researcher will adopt an inductive approach towards this research. The process involves establishing ideas and categories out of the data obtained, in other words, by giving meaning to the complicated information that will be collected (Thomas, 2006). This approach is in line with what Strauss and Corbin had stated in their publication in 1998 that the researcher will commence the research with what he wants to find out and let the idea arise from the information that he has obtained (Thomas, 2006). In addition, this approach is also suitable to be used in grounded theory, which is the method that will be chosen to carry out data analysis for this particular research (Thomas, 2006).
4. Plan
4.1. Ethnography
The ethnographer will take up a position of a contract worker at Google (Singapore) for a minimum period of half a year (Fetterman, 1998). This time period will ensure that there is sufficient time for the ethnographer to recognise the organisation's culture, track the staff's behaviour, learn the organisational language, etc. (Fetterman, 1998).
The researcher will adopt a "big-net" approach whereby upon entering the organisation, he will mingle with everyone in the organisation first (Fetterman, 1998). Next, he will then zoom-in and he will focus more on the 'useful' staff that will give him more valuable insights for the research (Fetterman, 1998). Moreover, it will be an advantage if the ethnographer engages a facilitator (Fetterman, 1998). This facilitator shall be someone who has considerable power or authority in the organisation and only he or she will know the real identity of the researcher. This facilitator will help to enhance the interaction between the staff the researcher, and also assist to build trust (i.e. rapport) between them. This will help to enhance the fruitfulness of the research.
In the midst of executing ethnography, the researcher will record down about what he notices daily - staff's actions, behaviour and words used etc. Thus, there will be a few apparatus that he may be using (Fetterman, 1998). Firstly, paper and pen. These two stationeries are critical to the researcher as he takes down all the essential data that he needs. They are cheap and easy to use. However, the ethnographer might not be able to record all the information that he had gathered in time, thus resulting in inaccuracy of the data collected (Fetterman, 1998).
Therefore, the second equipment that the researcher might consider may be a tape recorder. By using it, the ethnographer can obtain accurately every single word that is spoken by the staff (Fetterman, 1998). Moreover, he can also focus on the interaction process with the employees without getting distracted by the need of having to record things down manually.
4.2. Focus group
Each focus group will go through a minimum of three sessions to a maximum of five sessions (Smith, 1995). This will help the researcher to obtain more insightful and rich data, and also enables him to compare the response given from each focus group (Smith, 1995; Morgan, 1996).
Four groups of organisational members will be chosen - top-level managers, middle-level managers, entry-level managers and non-managerial staff. The participants for each focus group will be selected via stratified random sampling (Wengraf, 2001) so that each focus group will not be too large, and thus it will be easier to facilitate. Each group will consist of six participants, which is within the range of suggested number of participants (Morgan, 1996; Marrelli, 2008; Newman, 2002). They will be seating in a circle for better facilitation (Engman Jr., 1992).
These focus groups would be conducted in a round robin style, whereby the moderator will ask each participant the same question and one respondent will speak at a time. It is only when all the employees have been given a chance to comment, then will the facilitator welcome more inputs from those who would want to elaborate more (Marrelli, 2008). Moreover, it will be conducted at a place away from the company so as to avoid any distractions to the respondents.
5. Data analysis
For analysis of the data, grounded theory will be used. There will be a combination of three types of coding adopted (Strauss and Corbin's approach to coding). They are open coding, axial coding and selective coding (Bohm, 2004; Flick, 2009).
Firstly, the analysis will start with open coding. The data obtained will be segregated, whereby the researcher will analyse the text by line, by paragraph or even the entire text (Bohm, 2004). He will then write labels on the information that he has collected, meaning to say, the words or phrases will be tagged with different ideas or concepts (Elo and Kyngas, 2008; Flick, 2009). Furthermore, in order to prevent himself from just merely restructuring the text, the researcher will ask questions that contains 5W and 1H (Who, What, When, Where, Why and How), and this are known as "theory-generating" questions (Bohm, 2004). In addition, the researcher will then rank the discovered concepts according to their importance, whereby he will retain those that are relevant to the research questions and eliminate the ones that are irrelevant (Bohm, 2004).
Secondly, axial coding will be adopted. The codes with similar ideas or concepts will be grouped together, and this is known as "categorisation" (Bohm, 2004; Flick, 2009). The categories formed are known as "axial categories" (Bohm, 2004). Moreover, the researcher can produce as many groups as he deems fit (Elo and Kyngas, 2008). This approach also refines the groupings of the codes that are obtained from open coding. It will help to establish relationship between categories, thereby discovering codes that hold similar concepts. The concepts that are closely-linked to each other are to be used as the foundation of the theory (Spiggle, 1994).In addition, the categories that appropriately relate to the research questions and have the potential for the researcher to further expound on, will be chosen (Flick, 2009). On the other hand, information that is meaningless to the researcher will not be categorised or labelled (Spiggle, 1994).
Thirdly, selective coding is used. According to Flick (2009), the groups will be further developed and the researcher concentrates more on the main ideas, i.e. the concepts that are dominant from the interpretation of the data. The researcher will then find illustrations (from the circumstance that he had observed) that support these concepts. Eventually, a central category will emerge from this step, with sub-categories being attached to it. Thus, using what was obtained, the researcher will form a theory. Thereafter, the researcher will also need to check if the theory that was derived is in line with the data that he has collected (Flick, 2009).
6. Conclusion
All in all, this research question will be answered via the two methodologies - ethnography and focus groups. The researcher will also adopt an interpretivism approach and an inductive way of viewing the research and its data that will be collected. Finally, the raw data will be analysed using grounded theory and the coding will occur in three different phases, namely open coding, axial coding and selective coding.
Annex A
Focus group questions
1) Describe how you interact with your subordinates and your superiors.
2) Do the employees of your company have to follow a chain-of-command or are they able to feedback directly to the top management regarding any matters?
3) What are the criteria that Google uses to measure its employee performance?
4) What are the approaches that the organisation (or you) will take if the (or your) employees do not meet expectations?
5) Do the approaches apply to all the departments in Google? If no, what are the different methods that each department adopts when dealing with employees that fail to perform as expected?
6) How will the employees be rewarded when they meet or exceed expectations that are set for them by the managers?
