Category: Google

Introduction

It is not surprising that the majority of companies gradually develop their own systems of management which correspond to their needs and missions. Thus, it becomes interesting to study different companies in order to discover certain unique practices and tools they employ to improve their performance. Alphabet, the parent company of Google, is one of the largest enterprises worldwide, which, to a considerable extent, serve as examples to many other businesses. The current paper will contain both analysis and reflection on various aspects of Alphabets operations and practices which it promotes. First, the key events which Alphabet encountered in the past five years will be discussed. Specifically, the paper will cover Alphabets human relations strategy during the COVID-19 pandemic and its key decisions. Additionally, the paper will explore Alphabets research and development projects, and namely, its advancements in the sphere of healthcare. Next, the essay will concern the practices and theories extensively utilized by Alphabet and Google as means to improve organizational performance and promote better effectiveness. First, the essay will cover the topic of SWOT analysis which Googles managers employ to allocate resources in a correct manner. The paper will also talk about the Environmental, Social, and Corporate Governance framework of Google and its Equitable Workplace Initiative, which enables the company to promote sustainability and equality. Finally, the paper will assess the significance of the Code of Conduct at Google and organizations in general. The current paper relies on the results of the 5-Year Strategy Review of Business Simulation Activity of Alphabet. While it is important to conduct reviews and analyses, it is also crucial to reflect upon the findings, which the current paper will do. Nevertheless, the main idea of the current essay is that Alphabet and Google constitute exemplary companies in all aspects, from research and development to sustainability and equality commitments.

Identified Events

The analysis of Alphabet, which was conducted as part of the Business Simulation, has demonstrated that the most notable event which affected Alphabet and its company Google was the COVID-19 pandemic which started in 2020. The pandemic became the most disruptive event for the entire world in a decade and could be compared in terms of its negative impact to the 2007-2008 financial crisis. The pandemic caused a recession to begin, which translated into trillions of lost dollars in the United States alone, as well as a considerable increase in mortality (Findling, Blendon, & Benson, 2021). Essentially, the pandemic considerably affected every person on the planet and especially businesses which had to adapt to new circumstances. Moreover, in response to the pandemic, governments around the world had to introduce restrictive measures, which were the main source of the losses for businesses. Since the majority of countries worldwide had to close their borders, the travel and hospitality industries suffered the most serious impact as a result of the restrictions (Eliasson, 2022). At the same time, technological companies such as Google and other projects of Alphabet were better positioned for the pandemic.

Google as the most prominent representative of Alphabet, possessed an advantage over manufacturing companies since the majority of its operations could be performed virtually using the latest technological solutions. The spreading of the virus around the world forced many companies to resort to various radical measures to prevent their employees from contracting deadly diseases. Alphabet and all of the companies owned by it, including Google, chose the most common strategy in the corporate world, namely, letting employees work from home and avoid going to the office (Bergen, 2021). Such a method was utilized in order to enforce social distancing and stop people from spreading the virus by interacting with one another in crowded office spaces. Moreover, Google offered special COVID-19 community mobility reports, which featured important statistics on the topic of the pandemic.

The decision to provide employees with remote work opportunities was beneficial for both the company and workers since it reduced the probability of employees contracting the disease and potentially experiencing life-threatening health outcomes. Essentially, Alphabet avoided losing employees who were crucial to its operations and performed major tasks in the company. Workers received a chance to minimize the likelihood of being infected and work in a comfortable environment without being afraid of going to the office. Moreover, studies demonstrate that remote work during the pandemic did not affect the performance of companies (Maghlaperidze, Javakhishvili, & Kuspliak, 2021). Thus, it is possible to say that Alphabets decision was reasonable and beneficial for all stakeholders. The actions of Alphabet during the pandemic enabled me to learn about how effective and positive measures need to be introduced in crisis situations. Basically, the measures offered by Alphabet can be considered excellent, and they constitute a solid example of proper crisis management. After learning about the case with Alphabets decision to offer remote work opportunities to employees, I will employ the same strategy in similar scenarios.

The other two major events which emerged as part of Alphabets activities and were discovered during the Business Simulation were deep learning models which facilitated the detection of cancerous cells and breast cancer. Essentially, Alphabet designed special deep learning solutions which enabled researchers to gain the capacity to establish malignant growth and tumors (Croak & Dean, 2021). Basically, the company managed to develop state-of-the-art technological products which now can assist healthcare professionals and help people around the world who have cancer. Despite the fact that initially, Alphabets technology was not intended for medical purposes, the company was able to adjust it to fit a new task.

Such achievements of Alphabet allowed me to learn several key insights which concern the necessity to invest in innovation and diversify ones strategic directions. Alphabet is one of the biggest companies in the world, yet it still continues to allocate large resources on research and development. Moreover, Alphabet is expanding the range of its businesses and avoids focusing simply on search engines and information technology. As evidenced by the success of Alphabet in the sphere of healthcare, it is interested in investing in a diverse selection of projects. The main lessons here are the need to constantly stimulate new research and diversify interests since such a strategy can help businesses to get the chance to adjust to new circumstances.

Review and Discussion of Relevant Theories and Practices

SWOT analysis is one of the primary theories used by Alphabet managers to assess companies in order to distribute investments in a proper way. SWOT is a framework which enables companies to conduct a quick analysis in order to assess the internal capabilities and status (Henry, 2018). According to the SWOT theory, analyzing the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats of any business constitute the main elements which define its competitive position. SWOT is used by Alphabet in different scenarios, including the one concerning the program of an equitable workplace (Parker, 2021). SWOT enables Alphabet managers to receive a comprehensive picture of companies and their current state of affairs.

The SWOT theory demonstrates that it was extremely beneficial for assessing any given company in its respective industry. Moreover, SWOT analysis is easy to use, and it produces a substantial amount of information which is sufficient for gaining an insight into companies situations. Additionally, it can be applied to any type of company because its key components are universal and can be found in every industry or sector. Thus, SWOT presents a reliable tool for analysis of companies which can be particularly useful for corporate managers.

Change management is another viable practice utilized by Alphabet in order to increase efficiency and adopt new ways of operating, successfully responding to new challenges. Change management is an approach to facilitating the transition of organizational goals, technologies, and processes with an intention to introduce effective changes contributing to performance improvement (Lauer, 2020). The change management approach allows companies to stay in control of change and assist employees in adapting to new rules and procedures. Alphabet is constantly utilizing change management since the company needs to undergo different transformations in order to stay relevant and keep producing innovative solutions.

Businesses need to experience changes to stay competitive and be able to address the existing demand in the most effective manner. Change management implies awareness of the need for change, ensuring desire to participate in the change, provision of knowledge about how to change, and the ability to implement change, and change reinforcement (Grady et al., 2019). Alphabet demonstrates the importance of change management and presents lessons on how it can be successfully implemented. For instance, the previously mentioned Alphabets investments in deep learning models show how adopting new areas of research and development can yield significant results. Thus, change management constitutes a viable solution for dealing with the process of transformation inside companies.

Environmental, Social, and Corporate Governance is also employed by Alphabet, and it is a process which implies transforming the company to adhere to the highest standards of sustainability. The Environmental, Social, and Corporate Governance framework refers to a set of criteria which help to determine the level of environmental, social, and corporate responsibility of any given company or organization (McWilliams et al., 2019). Alphabet strives to demonstrate exemplary performance across all of the metrics of the aforementioned framework. For instance, Google has a goal of becoming carbon-free by 2030 (Google. Sustainability, n.d.). The achievement of the target will significantly improve the companys ranking in terms of its environmental responsibility.

The example of Google shows how important the Environmental, Social, and Corporate Governance model is for modern companies and why every business must seek ways to better deliver on its responsibilities. Climate change is one of the key issues humanity faces today, and corporate organizations have an obligation to reduce their impact on the environment (McIntyre, Ivanaj, & Ivanaj, 2018). As a result, every enterprise on the planet should follow the commitment of Google and similar companies in order to make a contribution to sustainable development. Moreover, improvements in terms of sustainability can enable companies to attract new investment and be better positioned for the future.

Another practice employed by Alphabet, which is in line with The Environmental, Social, and Corporate Governance framework, is the Equitable Workplace Initiative. Google, as the main asset of Alphabet, has a special program which involves improving leadership representation of ethnic minorities in the U.S. branches of the company by 30% by 2025 (Parker, 2021). Essentially, the company wishes to achieve better social responsibility as a major employer worldwide and particularly in the United States. Thus, Alphabet recognizes its privileged role in the industry and understands that it can serve as an example for thousands of companies around the world as a place of inclusion and equality.

The Equitable Workplace Initiative must be adopted by every company in the United States as a solution for solving the social inequality which exists between the majority of the population and the minorities. Such a program is a progressive and just move which can potentially deliver excellent results and positively impact the existing gap. As of now, there is a real imbalance in terms of the representation of minorities in the workforce globally, especially in leadership positions (de Aquino & Robertson, 2017). Programs such as The Equitable Workplace Initiative are incremental steps to counter the issue and provide minorities with new professional opportunities.

The final practice used by Alphabet is the enforcement of its Code of Conduct which is published on the companys official website. According to the Code of Conduct, all Google employees must follow the principles of integrity, fairness, responsiveness, usefulness and should always have privacy and freedom of expression (Google code, n.d.). The Code of Conduct is a document which establishes clear rules for all employees of the company irrespective of their positions. Moreover, the code also affects other stakeholders, including investors, and it is expected that everyone has an obligation to follow it.

The Code of Conduct is an essential document for every organization since it conveys the main responsibilities and rights of the employees who work for it. The Code of Conduct serves as a constitution for an enterprise which clarifies its primary mission, core values, and main principles, which must always be followed and supported by the worker. The Code of Conduct enables employees to understand the standards of professional conduct to which they have to adhere to. Additionally, the code is also helpful in situations of disputes between the worker and the manager or owner, who also must follow the rules of the document.

Conclusion, Future Plans, and Recommendations

The analysis and reflection on the topic of the core practices and main events faced by Alphabet and Google enable one to gain numerous insights into proper ways of management of successful enterprises. Alphabet is the parent company of Google, and it ultimately has control over the search engines operations. At the same time, Alphabet has a diverse selection of companies and research directions which cover numerous areas. For instance, the research undertaken as part of the Business Simulation paper has shown that Alphabet invests in deep learning models. Moreover, the company has achieved significant success in the area of deep learning models and has applied its inventions in the real of healthcare to detect cancerous cells. Such an example demonstrates the ability of the company to diversify its operations to cover different areas by investing in research and development. Such efforts enable the company to stay competitive and continue to generate innovative solutions which can be applied in different scenarios.

Additionally, the company has shown exemplary decision-making during the COVID-19 pandemic by providing its employees with a chance to start working remotely and avoid going to the office. The virus which caused the pandemic was particularly contagious, and many people were anxious about going to work and subjecting themselves to the risk of contracting the disease through interactions with their colleagues. Alphabet gave every employee an opportunity to stay at home and continue working on their projects in a comfortable environment. Such a decision constitutes an example of quality decision-making which actually was repeated on numerous occasions by different companies. Personally, the remote work strategy of Alphabet allowed me to learn about actual cases of effective crisis management, which taught me to act boldly in challenging situations. Letting employees work from home was a risk for the company, but it still agreed to provide such an opportunity to workers. Thus, I consider Alphabets decision a reminder of a necessity to listen to the needs of workers. In the future, when faced with a similar situation, I will follow the example of Alphabet and will provide employees with remote work opportunities.

Additionally, an analysis of Alphabets practices has yielded considerable results and offered many insights into the operations of the company. For instance, the company utilizes change management in order to stain in control of its internal transformations and transitions. Since the company is constantly expanding its range of interests and areas of expertise, it needs to adapt to new circumstances, which it successfully does using change management. Personally, I will use the same approach in my work with the intention to make the process of transformation inside my company as seamless as possible. Change management implies providing employees with new knowledge and expertise, which will be important for them to embrace the change positively and successfully. I agree with the change management principles that it is necessary both to inspire employees to transform and reinforce the change once it is achieved. Learning about change management enhanced my understanding of how companies need to adjust to new circumstances. In the future, I will employ the gradual change management model involving several steps, such as raising awareness of the need for change to transform poorly-functioning organizations.

Another important practice employed by Alphabet and Google is the adherence to the Environmental, Social, and Corporate Governance framework and the Equitable Workplace Initiative. Alphabet recognizes that it is an ideal position to lead the movement towards a more equal and sustainable future and therefore openly states its commitments to become carbon-free and increase ethnic minority representation. Alphabet sets an example for all modern companies, especially those which understand the fact that they have a responsibility to society and humanity in general to promote sustainability and equitability. In the future, I will propose a similar initiative in my workplace in order to incentivize the company to adhere to the principles of Environmental, Social, and Corporate Governance. Moreover, I will recommend to all of my business acquaintances to follow the example of Alphabet and design their sustainability and equality programs.

The Code of Conduct is another crucial practice utilized by Google and Alphabet, which constitutes a document containing all the key rules and rights for employees. The Code of Conduct is important for every organization because it enables them to present the main values, missions, and employee obligations in a concise manner. Moreover, the Code of Conduct often introduces formal procedures for disputes and other complicated situations, which the document can help to resolve. I would definitely recommend it to every organization to create and introduce their own code of conduct in order to have a universal tool for promoting certain standards of corporate conduct for all employees. In the future, I will employ a code of conduct as a necessary element of my own company, which will help me to provide employees with a document with their responsibilities and rights.

Reference List

Bergen, M. (2021) Google approves most staff requests to relocate or work remotely. Web.

Croak, M., & Dean, J. (2021). A decade in deep learning, and whats next. Web.

de Aquino, C., & Robertson, R. (2017) Diversity and inclusion in the global workplace: Aligning initiatives with strategic business goals. Springer.

Eliasson, J. (2022) Will we travel less after the pandemic?, Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives, 13, pp. 110.

Findling, M. G., Blendon, R. J., & Benson, J. M. (2021) Serious financial burdens facing U.S. households with employment loss during COVID-19, Challenge, 64(1), pp. 310.

Google code of conduct (n.d.) Web.

Google. Sustainability (n.d.) Web.

Grady, J., Grady, V., McCreesh, P., & Noakes, I. (2019) Workplace attachments: Managing beneath the surface. Routledge.

Henry, A. (2018) Understanding strategic management. Oxford University Press.

Lauer, T. (2020) Change management: Fundamentals and success factors. Springer Nature.

Maghlaperidze, E., Javakhishvili, N., & Kuspliak, H. (2021) Development of remote jobs as a factor to increase labor efficiency, Journal of Eastern European and Central Asian Research, 8(3), pp. 337348.

McIntyre, J., Ivanaj, S., & Ivanaj, V. (2018) CSR and climate change implications for multinational enterprises. Edward Elgar Publishing.

McWilliams, A., Rupp, D., Siegel, D., Stahl, G., & Waldman, D. (2019) The Oxford handbook of corporate social responsibility: Psychological and organizational perspectives. Oxford University Press.

Parker, M. (2021). Building a more equitable workplace, Web.

An Introduction to Google

Google was founded in 1998 by couple of students from Stanford University. Like many other businesses, a need of an efficient search engine was felt and there was a gap in the market which lead to the foundation of Google. Initially the company started as a basic search engine but sooner invented better ideas to sustain the market due to fierce competition with Yahoo, MSN and AOL. Today Google is having the biggest market share and a constant innovation coupled with strict recruitment policies is the key to success.

SWOT Analysis

Google is having numerous strengths but there seem to be few weaknesses while there are numerous opportunities and a great number of threats. Googles strength lies in its huge number of proficient employees who are not limited only to US but throughout the world. Google is offering numerous services which competitors are only thinking of, these include AdWords, Google Earth and Google Wireless to name a few. Unlike many other search engines, Google identified the gaps in the market and worked on them to gain a greater market share. Google successfully took over many other businesses to help itself grow while minimising the future threats, this includes the acquisition of blogger.com and inventing new service such as Google Toolbar. Google generates huge amount of profit from the AdWords and the best part is that the customers (other businesses) do not have to pay a single penny unless somebody clicks on the ad which means the customers pay as they play. Unlike many other competitors, Google is offering the highest number of services (range) and so it has penetrated deeper into the market.

There are few weaknesses as well, business over the internet always feel as virtual (due to lack of physical evidence) and so it is hard to identify if the customers are switching to the competitors, as there are no switching costs. Unlike Microsoft which is extremely popular and has a sound financial backup, Google is working independently and it may test its ability to recover if it faces a financial trouble. Google still has opportunities in the market as the world pattern is changing and number of people living a virtual life is increasing day by day. A huge segment to be triggered is the one that believes in more physical evidence and so Google can launch various software (CDs) to fulfil their needs. Google also has an authority to use strategies such as franchising or licensing which could help it getting even deeper into the market. As the number of online businesses is increasing day by day, there could be a need of advertising and what else could be more efficient than AdWords as there is no substitute to that in online marketing.

The internet is the only place where one can find infinite number of threats and Google is not immune to them as it is impossible to identify what the competitor is planning until it is implemented. Different kinds of viruses and scams are a threat to Google despite of having a secure network. There are even bigger players (that are financially even more stable) in the market constantly trying to gain the market share.

Customers

Google is open to everyone who has access to the internet. However, there are certain groups Google is more useful to. Googles initial purpose was to serve the market that looks for accurate search results online, it may include students, researchers and surfers. Google further offers many of the similar services in the field such as Google images, back in late 90s people were keen to get the images for various reasons, as it was hard to locate the images, Google catered the market and made it easier to look for any particular image by simply giving a hint of what is being searched.

There is a massive segment over the internet that became the most lucrative for Google to make revenue from, the growing number of online businesses in the 90s helped Google to stand where it is. Google AdWords was solely built to serve the online business segment as without marketing it is impossible for any business to survive in the market. Google not only came up with an idea to help such businesses market themselves but also it provided an easy option which requires the customer (business) to start an ad campaign with few simple lines at an initial cost of only $5. To avoid any disappointment, Google offered online businesses pay per click option, according to which they just have to pay if a potential customer clicks their ad which itself is a surety.

As we all know that success for companies like MSN and Yahoo lies in their mail services offer, Google also came up with an innovative idea of Gmail which is used for email purposes. This further helped Google in increasing the members who joined as normal users but helped Google by either turning into a customer or by leaving the competitors and switching to all other Google services.

Competitive Analysis

The competitors for Google are AOL, MSN and Yahoo, these were already well set in the market when Google entered the equation. Yahoo was the global brand at the time Google entered the market, Yahoo was providing all the necessary services to the internet users which include both private users and businesses but there were few drawbacks such as limited number of searches. Yahoo is however ranked second after Google in terms of its market share and number of services offered.

Yahoo was followed by AOL which is a part of Time Warner Inc, the success of AOL lies in the kind of services it offers, this include email services, sports, dating services, instant messaging services and news. There were flaws as well, AOL is not having a dominant search engine and also it is quite limited to US and Canada as can be guessed by its name which is America Online.

MSN that is a subsidiary of Microsoft Corporation seems to be the toughest competitor of Google as it has not limited itself to the internet and online services but company is offering software, PCs, games (X Box) and most of the services including our very own msn messenger and hotmail. However, MSN remained a bit slow in reacting to Googles philosophy of constant innovation and hence Google took the number one spot leaving the competitors to wonder how to cope with it. Apart from these giants, Google has faced some competition with the smaller search engines such as altavista.com.

Summary

Throughout its history Google has believed in constant innovation, a concept which requires a business to take many risks due to uncertain trends of the market but in Googles case this strategy paid off. There were always small gaps in the market which Google tried to fill when competitors failed. Googles success lies within its recruitment strategies as well as majority of the staff working at Google is more proficient technically, the living example of which is Google Earth.

Correlating ones personal traits and performance can be useful if the former is considered as one of many factors that affect the latter. However, I think that it should not be used as a sole basis for screening the potential candidates because personal traits cannot be only a performance predictor. An employees overall performance can highly fluctuate depending on the situation, too, because stressful events, such as the death of a loved one, can negatively affect it. In addition, Google can potentially miss out on outstanding candidates who may not correspond to the traits. Lastly, the main issue also lies in the fact that personality traits cannot be fully studied during the screening process because an individual might not be fully open regarding his or her personality.

In order to recruit and hire the brightest people, an organization needs to attract them first. The latter can be done by offering better conditions and wages as well as stability. In the case of Google, the companys overall success and size alongside the conditions make the most outstanding individuals to be drawn in. The next step will involve filtering out the most suitable and qualified candidates by conducting a thorough professional analysis and background check. Although academic and professional credentials are critical, an organization needs to possess independent testing that evaluates all essential aspects, including personality traits. The given process should not be negligent and discriminatory, and thus it should involve foolproof approaches.

Google is highly innovative regarding its HR policies and practices, which can be considered as one of the main contributors to the companys success. First, human resource management at Google promotes a thirst for data, which means that recruiters prefer analyzing large data pools and derive improved frameworks. Second, Google incorporated the Happiness Project, which is designed to promote the well-being, health, and happiness of its employees. Third, the company developed Project Oxygen, which includes a list of essential traits of Google managers (3 lessons from Googles HR policy, n.d.). These approaches helped to preserve the work-life balance among its workers. In addition, Google could also integrate freedom policies, which would allow its employees to work from any location, including home, as long as the tasks are completed. Last, Google could also encourage hard work and self-development by conducting unbiased competitions among its workers. For example, software developers can have coding competitions with the victor who can get a promotion or raise. By having such events, employees will be willing to improve themselves through independent training and education.

Reference

3 lessons from Googles HR policy. (n.d.).

Introduction

Google is an international company that deals with computing, adverts technologies, and internet exploration. Its main aim is to organize all the world facts and make this information useful and available to everyone. The company has advanced so much that it has changed the way we undertake our research as well as advertising companies products (Scott 3). Almost everyone around the world is relying on Google in a number of ways. For instance, students all over the world are relying on Google to obtain educational materials. This paper will address the extent to which performance management is effective at Google Corporation. This will be achieved by analyzing the human resource management of the company. This analysis will determine how the HR department has helped the company to succeed in its activities.

Analysis

Google has more than one million attendants in the statistics centers located in different parts of the world. These attendants deal with more than one billion exploration requests, and approximately twenty-four generated user statistics petabytes in a day (Scott 4). Ever since Google was incorporated, it has grown at a high rate such that the company has been able to acquire various properties, associated with many partnerships, and has innovated several products such as online Gmail software, social network tools, and Google Buzz (Vise 6). In addition, it provides the following products: a desktop with a Google chrome browser, software for editing, an organization for Picasa photo, and the instant application Google talk for messages. Google has been one of the powerful brands and the leading developer of the Android phones operational system, which is mostly used in many phones like Motorola Droid and Nexus. In fact, this corporation deserves a reward for incorporating a perilous project and brought it in the market for the public.

The Google HR department has employed people who have various qualities and skills of mind, and one has to be a university top rank person. These employees are encouraged to be inventive and creative at the workplace. The HR management recognized that, for them to uphold their rapid growth, the corporation had to invent new products though the company was facing various difficulties in inventing new ideas and transforming them into prosperous products (Storey 29). The management went on and developed a web page for pursuing new thoughts as a way of expression since they had the ideas but lacked the best method of expression. The Google enrolling process has been condemned mostly by analysts. Some of them believe that the company had a decently organized culture while others are convinced that the corporation has a bad culture. The analyst argued that the recruitment process was narrow, as Google was only concerned with the educational records and graduate levels of the candidates, but they did not care about their experiences.

Several reasons have made Google Corporation be in better rapid growth. Some of the reasons include: the company offers the required resources for transforming the inventive thoughts into reality, and every customer thought has been recognized as useful to improve the company. There is also a group of people to boost the speed and creativeness of the corporation. The management has provided a flexible working atmosphere and a lot of fun in the office. Nowadays, the market demands a lot of invention and trust rather than just the sales analysis and the market share. Google management has put much effort into eliminating the global recession and make sure that all the employees are committed to the company. The HR department has been the mentor to the workers through guiding, training, and educating them on the issues of the corporation though there are some workers who are competent and fully trained. These few competent workers handle the customers effectively, thus increasing customer satisfaction as well as increasing the corporation reputation. The effective planning of HR has brought major achievements in the corporation.

The successfulness of Google Company is maintained by the HR department by making sure that all workers are fully dedicated and committed to the company work with their complete honesty (Girard 37).The management tries their best to motivate employees and this encourages them to continue working on their creative thoughts. The HR department makes sure that the market changes are not negatively affected by the amount of resources involved in encouraging the employees to be fully committed to the company work. The management have been working on, studying and acknowledging the workers ideas and providing any possible room for creativeness and invention. The Google HR management provides healthy growing and educating opportunities to the employees such as sessions of feedback delivery, executive conversation, business writing, management, solely and group skill presentation, and business development. Google has also sponsored several foreign languages such as, Japanese, Spanish and French for the workers.

The HR department offers special training programs for engineers, such as career development, training and orientation sessions (Guest 347). It has improved on leadership by developing leadership programs for backing up the future leaders. The management has been encouraging engineers to collaborate with each other, as this has brought success in the corporation by combining their creativeness. They are standards indicating how the employees are supposed to behave such as respect each other, remain confidential to the company, protect the assets of the Google, and maintain good relations both internally and externally. Google employees are also motivated through provision of short term financial incomes from work and supporting anything that could make the employees to be more creative. Employees needs are also taken care of by making sure that they are provided with the least services they would worry about like car wash, oil checking services and salons (Guest 348).

The corporation has grown very rapidly within a short period of time. It compensates its employees without favor or delay as it has an excellent equity. Google workers have been the drive in the development of the products. When new products are released, they are circulated internally where the workers provides feedback to the managers and engineers who made it. HR department maintains that there should be no retaliation of employees in case of violation of the workers conduct. The no retaliation and the conduct of the workers policy demonstrate the bold ethical behavior in the corporation. Good relations within the organization ensures that low level employees are able to raise certain issues without any fear as they are allowed to discuss anything with anyone including the managers. The top management considers ideas raised by other employees very useful. The HR management aim is to maintain good relations between the employees and the top management as well as the whole public at large.

Effective management of the Google Corporation has made it attain rapid and great success. The management has empowered the workers a lot thus encouraging them to remain creative and transform their great thoughts into prosperous reality. The management has ensured that the company image is maintained by firing the illegitimate workers in accordance to the prevalent laws. Google HR management normally conducts a thorough research on resource management to ensure that they are able to compete with others and be in a position to handle business changes.

The HR management has faced some failures here and there but they have grown strong through the lessons they learn from these failures. One of the failures is the inability of the management to apply some creative thoughts brought out by talented employees (ICMR 1). By admitting and embracing this failure is a way of dealing with innovation. The management tries to ensure that corporation engineers deliver the greatest search results which the world at large wants to know.

Every day, the Google results is changing the world lives through its daily innovation in these challenging moments as their aim is to deliver the information that the user is searching for. The management tries their best and make sure that they does not take long to convey the results because if this happens the corporation will lose the world attention and trust (ICMR 1).

Google HR department have a problem of choosing only top performing students as their employees. The management candidates who have excellent academic records in the university might not be successful when we come to the real job. The Google HR forgets that a candidate might not have good academic records, but could have a lot of experience in the search fields and could work better than the candidate with excellent academic results. The Google HR should stop their academic candidature elimination method and focus on the candidate experience, integrity, ability and honesty.

The HR uses most of the corporation resources to make sure that innovative ideas are transformed into reality (Girard 23). They spend a lot of money in delivering the search results to many screens through phones operational systems and browsers. Generally, these methods are very expensive to make the channels accessible for distribution. A lot of money is also spent on engineers for them to encourage them to bring the expected search results. The management spends a lot of resources by making every way possible that employees will be able to remain creative and inventive and also to turn these ideas into successful reality of the corporation. The management should try to minimize these costs by dealing with the ideas that they think will be prosperous to the company. The method of motivating the workers should be minimal so that they do not spoil them by overdoing it.

Conclusion

The Google Corporation was incorporated in 1998 and has grown very rapidly because of its effective management of the HR department. This department has enrolled the very competent workers who are well trained and educated in the Google field. The HR offers training and education to the few who are not well trained. Though the process of educating and training them is very expensive, the HR allows this so that employees will be creative, inventive and transform their great thoughts into successful reality. The corporation stills uses a lot of resources in the process of distributing the search results through the channels, browsers and mobile phones.

Works Cited

Girard, Bernard. The Google way: How one company is revolutionizing management as we know it. New York: No Starch Press, 2009. Print.

Guest, David. Human Resource Management, Corporate Performance and Employee Wellbeing: Building the Worker into HRM. The Journal of Industrial Relations (2002): 335-358. Print.

ICMR. Googles Organizational Culture. 4 November 2004. ICMR. Web. 14 February 2012.

Scott, Virginia A. Google. New York: Greenwood Publishing Group, 2008. Print.

Storey, John. Human Resource Management: A Critical Text. New York: Routledge, 2000. Print.

Vise, David. The Google story. Washington: Delacorte Press, 2005. Print.

Google and Microsoft are two major American companies that compete in a number of fields, some of which include online search engines and online advertising. In this paper, the question of whether Microsoft should continue competing with Google, which enjoys more success in these markets, will be discussed.

Using the scheme proposed by Chen (1996), it is possible to say that Google and Microsoft have a very high degree of market commonality, as well as medium to high degree of resource similarity in the markets of search engines and online advertising. Also, the relationships between the companies in these markets are not symmetrical.

Indeed, Google has a larger piece of the market, providing 64% of search results in the U.S., whereas Microsofts Bing provides only 20%; and yet, Bing is the second most popular search engine in the U.S. (OReilly, 2015). Also, in 2011 the share of Google in the U.S. Internet-search advertising revenue was 74%, while Bings was 13.7% (Ovide, 2012b). Clearly, this data does not allow for direct and rigorous comparison, but the numbers for search results are still better for Microsoft in 2015 than the numbers for its ads revenue in 2011, which makes it possible to assume that Microsoft is not losing its ground. It appears a good enough reason for Microsoft to stay in the market for both online advertising and search engines.

As for the competition of Microsoft Office and Google Apps, Office continues to have more than a 90% market share for business-productivity software, as the category is known, and more than an 80% share of corporate email (Ovide, 2012a), which means that Microsoft has more resources in their potential, and so it is recommendable to strive to keep their clients.

To sum up, it appears that Microsoft, despite Googles tremendous success, has rather strong positions, and it is reasonable to strive to keep and improve them.

Uber is an American real-time ridesharing company that was founded in 2009 and rapidly became the most valuable American company of its generation (The Economist, 2015a, para. 1). In this paper, the source of Ubers competitive advantage and possible challenges will be discussed.

According to Christensen and Overdorf (2000), disruptive innovations create an entirely new market through the introduction of a new kind of product or service (p. 72). Uber entered the market as a disruptive innovator (Stone, 2014); it provided the real-time ridesharing services that were sometimes worse in quality, but much cheaper and faster than regular taxis. Numerous people quickly started valuing this new service for its advantages, as well as owners of cars who could make some money in a convenient way.

The fact that Uber was not burdened by the needs of the traditional taxi industry, the easiness of entry for drivers, and the speed with which Uber could be used by clients were the features that could not have been matched by traditional taxi services; they provided the new firm with a major competitive advantage.

Noteworthy, many innovators often face legal challenges, and Uber is one of such cases (The Economist, 2015b); the company was initially unable to address all the quality issues due to the specifics of the business (the drivers were not employees of the enterpyrise). The firm initially worked counter to the legal regulations. Even today, the inability of the law to quickly incorporate the changes caused by the innovative technologies poses legal problems for the company (The Economist, 2015b). However, to deal with the challenges, it is possible to improve the quality of service. The firm has been doing it, for instance, by imposing quality regulations, and nowadays their service is clean and reliable (The Economist, 2015a, para. 2), which allows for better complying with the legal regulations.

To sum up, Uber entered the market as a disruptive innovator and grew rapidly thanks to the competitive advantages it had. The enterprise has some legal problems but addresses them by improving the quality of service.

References

Chen, M. J. (1996). Competitor analysis and interfirm rivalry: Toward a theoretical integration. The Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 100-134.

Christensen, C. M., & Overdorf, M. (2000). Meeting the challenge of disruptive change. Harvard Business Review, 78(2), 66-76.

OReilly, L. (2015). So long and thanks for all the ads! Heres why Microsoft is exiting the $74 billion display advertising business.

Ovide, S. (2012a). Microsoft hits back as Google muscles in.

Ovide, S. (2012b). Microsoft stung by web woes. Web.

Stone, B. (2014). Invasion of the taxi snatchers: Uber leads an industrys disruption. Web.

The Economist. (2015a). Driving hard.

The Economist. (2015b). Shredding the rules.

Google and Microsoft are major multinational technology companies, together with Amazon and Apple they constitute four Tech Giants  corporations which dominate the information technology sphere. While Microsoft and Google have similar business models, it might be relevant to research the differences in their functioning.

Microsoft was the first company that suggested providing home computers with packaged software. It remains the leading operator in the sphere; it also offers email service and produces mobile devices, games, and video and audio equipment. Google, first developed as a search engine, now provides a variety of products  it has an email service, a web browser, and various online tools; its sub-companies include Android and YouTube. In some areas, the companies compete  in 2009, Microsoft launched its search engine, Bing, which was not particularly successful. Google introduced Google Docs, which has attracted many customers due to its efficient collaboration features but has not significantly shaken the positions of MS Word. However, it prompted Microsoft to launch Office Live.

The companies have some differences in terms of public perception. Google is believed to be built on innovation and customer service, while Microsofts reputation has suffered after some years of dominating the sphere. Google is also known for attracting creative and talented employees and giving them 20 percent of their workweek to pursue individual projects (Adams, 2016). According to some research, the company is better at proving work-life balance than Microsoft, though the difference is not striking (Vourakis, 2019). Google is also claimed to have a better corporate culture (Vourakis, 2019). Both companies are considered to be good working places for LGBT people (Jackson, 2019). Microsoft and Google seek out smaller promising companies and either consume or collaborate with them.

Both Microsoft and Google are similar in their primary business strategy  continually developing, but Google may have a slightly better reputation in that area. Both companies emphasize seeking out talented employees and encouraging their creativity. As of yet, Googles positions on the web are stronger than Microsofts, while Microsoft is more influential in the desktop application market. However, Google is trying to create successful desktop products, while Microsoft  improves its positions online.

References

Adams, B. (2016). How Googles 20 percent rule can make you more productive and energetic. Inc.

Jackson, Amy E. (2019). Amazing companies that champion LGBTQ equality hiring now. Glassdoor.

Vourakis, A. (2019). Analyzing employee reviews: Google vs Amazon vs Apple vs Microsoft. Medium.

Google is one of the most famous multinationals in the world. It operates in over 50 countries worldwide (Google Inc, 2015). Google provides a wide range of products and services in the sphere of IT technology (including development of applications, devices and so on).

The company was founded in 1998 by Larry Page and Sergey Brin (Googles mission is to organize the worlds information, 2015). The founders were students at Stanford University and this has affected the organizations philosophy and values. At Google, entrepreneurial zeal and diversity are favored most. The companys founders understand that diversity of the staff translates into diversity of ideas and accomplishments, which make the company stronger and more successful.

There is sufficient bulk of information on the company and its diversity policies. Information can be easily found on the companys official websites as well as various reputable newspapers.

In terms of the organizations culture, Google strives for diversity manifested in all aspects. The company stresses that its diversity policy is transparent and it enables Google to recruit more diverse workforce (Were working toward a web that includes everyone, 2015).

However, it is clear that this effort is not enough, as the workforce at Google is not as diverse. When it comes to ethnicity, the majority of employees are whites while 30% of employees are Asians. Hispanic population is underrepresented, as it constitutes only 3% of the workforce. Black population comprises only 2% of the workforce.

It is noteworthy that the company has a number of programs aimed at attracting employees pertaining to ethnic minorities. The programs involving Asian employees are quite significant whereas programs focusing on other ethnicities are far from being enough (Were working toward a web that includes everyone, 2015). When it comes to gender, it is also clear that the majority is still constituted by males. More so, the numbers are even worse when it comes to leadership as only 22% of leading positions are occupied by females.

It is possible to state that the diversity policy is now managed systemically as there are certain programs aimed at development and retention of females or people of color. The company has numerous programs that involve partnerships with different schools. Internships enable students to explore their creativity and land good jobs. The company also benefits from such policies as they can find new talents.

Flexibility of work hours is another factor that may attract females who often have to balance their family life (bringing up their children) and their careers. However, it is clear that the company has to focus on recruiting and developing employees pertaining to ethnic minorities (especially Hispanic and Black population). Jacobson (2014) states that disclosing data on diversity is the first and a very important step that will enable the company to create an efficient diversity policy.

In conclusion, it is possible to state that Google makes a lot of effort to make its workforce more diverse. The company launches various policies and programs that encourage females and people of color to develop and strive for managerial posts. It is also important that the company reveals the data on its diversity policies and their outcomes. At the same time, it is necessary to note that the effort is insufficient as the company has not reached diversity yet.

Reference List

Google Inc. (2015). Web.

Googles mission is to organize the worlds information and make it universally accessible and useful. (2015).

Jacobson, M. (2014). Google finally discloses its diversity record, and its not good. PBS Newshour.

Were working toward a web that includes everyone. (2015). Web.

Innovation is the foremost wheel which drives humanity forward. In this silicone era most innovations we see are all around tech. Not just entrepreneurs but even big tech giants are contributing their fair share of ideas to keep the heat. An innovative idea has a high probability of failure with respect to startups. That’s no big deal, it happens all the time and its reasons are quite well known yet versatile. This research paper is focused on lesser discussed more important topic that is failure of innovation by tech giants. Innovation by a giant means a bigger project requiring more resources like money, skilled labor and lots of time: a fascinating idea that could revolutionize the way we live still fails to succeed in the market. This is a big deal because it’s a tech giant, aiming for high risk and high return because they can still end up as a failure. This not only hurts the value of the company but such big giants at times represent the nation itself. And not to forget the resources, time, ample amount of money and waste of highly skilled technical experts’ time. For this study, I chose one great idea – Google Glass – trying to figure out the reasons for its epic collapse.

Google Glass is a brand of smart glasses—an optical head-mounted display designed in the shape of a pair of eyeglasses. It was developed with a mission to produce ‘ubicomp’, i.e. a computer (smartphone) is made to appear anywhere and anytime. Since, 2010, Google (GOOG) X, an initiative started by Sebastian Thrun, has attempted to improve life and commodities by a factor of 10, rather than ten percent, through efforts called moonshots. Project Glass was assembled by virtue of these ambitions. Viewed as a vehicle for future technology, the MIT Technology Review comments that “Glass is already miles from where it was in 2011”. In fact, the invention, which was merely a shot in the dark, has taken on an afterlife of its own.

The Dream

Google Glass isn’t coming to save the world, just help it. In fact, the central dispute among members of Google X is whether Glass should be used as a ‘fashionable device’ all the time or “only for specific utilitarian functions.” Drawing inspiration from John F. Kennedy’s understanding that bigger challenges create more passion, specifically in regards to the space race, Google development ultimately strove to integrate feedback into its system. To do this, Google co-founder Sergey Brin, who also oversees Google X, suggested Glass be treated as a finished product, despite everyone in the lab knowing it was a ‘prototype, with major kinks to be worked out’. Brin wanted to release Glass to the public and have consumers provide feedback that X could then use to improve the design. The Glass prototype was released early as a result, with the intention of being more forward-looking than expressly convenient. Tim Brown, CEO and president of IDEO, feels the effort was not in vain, stating: “There has never in the history of new technology been an example where the first version out of the gate has been the right version”. Ultimately, although consumers want wearable technology, the functionality needs to be palatable. As Slate notes, “Glass’ problem is that the technology today simply doesn’t offer anything that average people really want, let alone need, in their everyday lives”. Glass is an interesting idea: it is nice to look at, but not through.

The Reality

Google originally advertised Glass in terms of experience augmentation. The 2012 demo reel featured skydiving, biking as well as wall scaling. Eventually, the videos showed user-friendly information instantaneously appearing on screen during everyday activities. Google’s aspirations were lofty: the technology required lengthy battery life, improved image-recognition capabilities, and a lot of data.

Rather than augment reality, Glass simply supplemented it. The two to three-hour battery life enabled users to check messages, view photos and search the Internet. Glass was competing with other devices that boasted superior cameras, larger capacity, and faster processors. Before the product was even launched, there were already concerns as to how safe Google Glass is for everyday use. Not everyone was comfortable with the idea of having a gadget that constantly emits carcinogenic radiation so close to the head. There were several reasons for the mainly:

Privacy and Health Concerns

The built-in camera also raised privacy and piracy concerns. Remember that the Google Glass could be recording or taking a photo at any time. This means the person sitting in front of you at the subway or at the next table could be taking a picture or footage of you. “Google Glass is a breakthrough concept, but it involves wearing a camera on your face, saying things like ‘OK, Google’, out loud, and walking around like it’s cool to do those things in public”, – says Dan Kaplan of Threadling. Another main concern was the possibility of illegally filming movies in cinemas, which is the reason why the device was prohibited in a lot of movie theaters. It was also banned in casinos where people didn’t appreciate surreptitious recording. There are simply too many ways to exploit the capabilities of the Google Glass. The mounted camera isn’t really a bad idea, but it could be in the wrong hands and situation.

No Clear Function

“Similarly, in your business, be sure that before you focus on the results or outcome, that you make it crystal clear what problems you solve, or why people might need what you offer”, – says Ian Altman of Forbes. The key to creating a great product is to find the demand or a problem that your product is trying to solve. You don’t just make a product first and find someone who’ll be interested in it after. This is an essential step before determining your target market, planning your promotion strategy, driving in sales, and calling your product a success. Unfortunately, this simple principle in business was overlooked in the development of Google Glass. The Google Glass has two basic functions: to quickly capture images and to have a feed of useful information from the internet a glance away. What are the most practical daily uses for these features? None. Obtaining the Google Glass offered no clear benefit to consumers whatsoever. In fact, even the engineers behind the product weren’t agreeing as to how it should be used. Some argued that it should be worn all the time, while others believed it should only be used in certain situations. This also resulted from the worst reason as to why the Google Glass never took off.

Aesthetically Unappealing

While the idea of a smart device mounted on a pair of glasses sounded awesome, Google Glass’ design somehow looked awkward and very unattractive. The product looked like as if it is still in its prototype stage (which could actually be the case). Not only does it look unnatural, wearing it in a dark alley or even in a crowded place doesn’t really sound too safe, given its price.

Conclusion

Google became caught up in the storm of its own making when it marketed Glass. The company wanted to capitalize on the hype, hope, and potential of the product instead of selling the reality. Rather than promoting the product as a prototype technology from the future as initially intended, the promotion and high price of Glass simply gave it the allure of a super-premium product.

With constant development of technology nowadays, it becomes more complex to draw a line between legitimate information delivery and defamation. A question brought to the table is that whether a search engine assumes full liability for any damages triggered by defamatory publication on its platform or whether a plea of innocent dissemination is applicable. In defamation law, a plaintiff can take a party to the court arguing that he has endured three of the following things: the words or pictures “were capable of defamatory meaning, … identify him as the person defamed, … heard or seen by a third person” (Thenewsmanual.net n.d.). To keep it simple, an examination of the defamation case between Dr. Janice Duffy and Google will provide a practical application on what current Australian law system is practicing.

In 2011, a former SA health department researcher had filed a civil lawsuit against Google for defamation by a number of articles composed on a site named ‘Ripoff Report’. The content is alleged to hold slanderous imputations about Dr. Janice Duffy such as claims about her being a stalker and conducting continual harassment of clairvoyants. The plaintiff, in July 2009, realized that searches for her name on Google’s search engine generated the showcase of passages from the Ripoff Report and hyperlinks to other sites repeating that writing. Dr. Duffy asked Google to remove the material because of its potential defamation for her, and yet, the firm declined. After tedious years of costly trials, the Court had ruled in favor of Dr. Duffy and ordered the giant internet search engine to pay the plaintiff an award of $100,000 for general damages with the addition of $15,000 interest.

The plaintiff claimed three aspects which had driven her lawsuit against Google over defamation. The first viewpoint is under various insertion of Dr. Duffy’s names, Google was responsible for publication of search results that include extracts from and hyperlinks to 16 websites whose passages constitute libel about her. An example of paragraphs, cited by Cryptome.org, displayed if a user searches for “Dr. Janice Duffy” is “Dr. Janice Duffy is truly an embarrassment to her profession as a Senior Researcher in Adelaide Australia”, “… Psychics must be aware of a psychic stalker named Janice Duffy”, and so forth. It is reported by Marcus (2015) about Dr. Duffy’s concern that any potential employer would find her information through Google search engine and be exposed to those articles, which resulted in her financial and mental suffering. Secondly, Dr. Duffy pointed out that scans for her name on Google brought about the substitute term “Janice Duffy psychic stalker” offered by Google’s “autocomplete utility from June 2011 onwards and its related search utility from June 2012 onwards” (Cryptome.org n.d.), from which defamation could emerge. Moreover, on account of the production of excerpts and hyperlinks to Ripoff Report materials, Google was by all means the second publisher of such traducing content.

One of the most famous cases where Google was also considered second publisher of defamatory content would be Trkulja litigation against Google in 2012. He has successfully sued Google for defamatory search results of his name which falsely associate him with the Melbourne underworld criminal. On the Inforrm’s Blog (2017), it is written that the Victorian Supreme Court had awarded Trkulja $200,000 for damages in their final decision. The question was raised, in the same manner as Dr. Duffy’s lawsuit, whether Google is considered the publisher of its search results. With respect to web matter, Trkulja found the search results and autocomplete predictions that display a thumbnail picture of the plaintiff slanderous of him. On 3rd December 2012, Trkulja notified Google and sought for its authority to take the material down. It was argued that once the defendant had been given notice and had the power to withdraw the material, yet refused to do so, it unavoidably turned into a primary publisher of the complained matter. This defense was accepted by the Court and had brought Trkulja a famous victory against the technology behemoth.

According to Cryptome.org, Google repudiated allegations of any disparaging publications connected to its website and contended with “defenses of innocent dissemination, qualified privilege, justification and contextual truth”. Speaking of qualified privilege, the firm asserted that there is a public interest in acquiring data pertinent to the pursuit term, and thus Google shared a corresponding interest in presenting that information. In terms of justification plea, Google referred to Dr. Duffy’s exchange with Kasama administrators and posts on the site to prove the truthfulness of imputations claimed by the senior researcher. By which, it is bound to imputations of “stalking, harassment, government mail misuse, injury infliction, and reputation tarnishing … phoney name for deception; disseminated lies; … inaccurate and damaging reports about psychics; … manners requiring complaints against her to protect consumers” (Cryptome.org, n.d.). Justice Malcom Blue in the final verdict has rejected defense of innocent dissemination for the fact that defamatory materials were a result of a programmed search engine intended by Google. The defendant therefore had become a second publisher of the text when it was alerted by Dr. Duffy about the slanderous text in question. That Google rejected the request of content removal renders it liable for defamatory publications.

The implication of Dr. Janice Duffy v Google case has set a new bar for any search engine out there to carefully practice what an ordinary fair consumer would comprehend from its hyperlinks. In case of defamation caused by programmed search results, the publication is accused of disparaging imputations regarding an individual when his reputation is at risk of being tarnished; there is prospective damage to the person’s profession or business; and he is expected to be disregarded, ostracized, mocked, and loathed by others (Thenewsmanual.net n.d.). Therefore, as someone who has authority over content display, search engine firms should be mindful of the potential consequences of published materials on their platforms. Once notified of defamatory matter by users, a company will be counted as primary publisher of such content given that it decides to do nothing with the request. Same golden rule is also applied to the autocompletion coded by companies. As long as plaintiff can prove that the term offered by search engine is substantial in leading to his defamation, the award charged for firm in lawsuit would be costly depending on the scale of information dissemination. After two colossal cases of Google versus users, it is time to rethink about the role of search engine and its effect on today’s consumers. Everything might not appear to be as innocent as pure information delivery in the old time.

References

1. Cryptome.org., n.d., online, Available at: https://cryptome.org/2015/12/duffy-v-google.pdf [Accessed 6 Apr. 2019].
2. Inforrm’s Blog. (2017). Case Law, Australia: Google Inc v Trkulja, Trkulja III not as good as the originals – Justin Castelan. [online] Available at: https://inforrm.org/2017/02/17/case-law-australia-google-inc-v-trkulja-trkuljga-iii-not-as-good-as-the-originals-justin-castelan/ [Accessed 6 Apr. 2019].
3. Marcus, C. 2015, ‘Adelaide woman sues Google for defamation’, ABC News, online, Available at: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-27/adelaide-woman-sues-internet-giant-google-for-defamation/6890292 [Accessed 6 Apr. 2019].
4. Thenewsmanual.net, n.d., ‘Defamation in Australia’, online, Available at: http://www.thenewsmanual.net/Resources/medialaw_in_australia_02.html [Accessed 6 Apr. 2019].

Google search is a great tool for searching information that we need for work. It is so easy just to Google something knowing you will have it at the palm of your hand in no time at all or better yet not having to spend hours looking in books for a bit of information. But searching Google for every answer may seem awesome there are some negative impacts it can bring to our own intelligence as well.

There are many benefits for using search engine. For example, it can help us save time, access free information, it can be more comprehensive, allows us to use a more advanced search, and it keeps the relevance of what is being searched. So, these search engines help us a lot in terms of accessing information at the time that we need something. But just because it has good benefits in our search for information does not mean we are being affected negatively.

Philip (2016) ‘Cognitive Offloading: How the Internet Is Changing the Human Brain’ informs about how access to information has become simpler to find and that it’s changing our ways of thinking. Finding information before the Internet was a huge struggle back then and the amount of effort that was needed to find it was hard. But know that the Internet allows us to search any information we want it has become easier than ever. Philip mentions a study that he included in his article about a study made by the University of California, Santa Cruz and the University of Illinois, Urbana Champaign. These studies were conducted by Benjamin Storm who was leading this study. The investigation consisted in how likely the participants would reach for their electronic devices when given a question to answer. So, participants were divided into two groups in which they set one group to use Google while the second group was not. Now this is where things get interesting; after the first series of questions were answered they allowed both groups to use Google. When the second series of questions were given those who use Google were the last to answer the question because they were more likely to rely on the search engine. While the group that did not use Google were faster in answering the questions that is because they were relying on their memory rather than using the search engine. As a result, Benjamin Storm came to this conclusion: “As more information becomes available via smart phones and other devices, we become progressively more reliant on it in our daily lives”. In other words, Benjamin is telling us that as information becomes easier to access, we start relying daily on the search engines such as Google.

Researchers Evan F Risko and Sam Gilbert refer to this as ‘cognitive offloading’, which means the use of physical action to alter the information processing requirements of a task so as to reduce cognitive demand. According to these two researchers they state that this has been going on for years. Evan and Sam found in their study that people rely on technology when it is superior to their own abilities. According to researchers these devices are needed because our memory has their limits as well.

Stéphanie Thomson (2016) in her article ‘Scientists Say Google Is Changing Our Brains’ demonstrate how Google searches have grown in past few years. In 2007 Google searches were 1.20 in average and for 2013 it has increased to 5.92 in less than five years. She says that thanks to the Internet specifically that people no longer need to rely on their memory for random information or small details. She also mentions, “But with all the knowledge we could ever need at our fingertips, are we outsourcing our memory to the Internet?”, and supports this claim with the exact same study as Philip mentioned in his article about the research Universities of California and Illinois did. This trend of using the Internet researchers is referring to it as ‘cognitive offloading’. She mentions Benjamin Storm stating, “Whereas before we might have tried to recall something on our own, now we don’t bother”. In which we agree with him as well because people now a days can remember things perfectly but we have become too dependent on the Google search engine that we rather use it than remember it our self.

In a Ted Talk mention refers to Michael Merzenich, a professor from the University of California in which he explains the details of how the brain is prepared for change. Stéphanie claims: “But is it changing for the better? At this point, we don’t know”. An opinion from people seems to be whether this affects us in a good or bad way. Nicholas Carr, author of ‘What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains’ is not quite pleased with the Internet. Nicholas believes that relying on the Internet over our own memory is affecting us greatly and that it is something necessary for our knowledge and wisdom. Also, other researchers in that field came to the same conclusion as Nicholas.

But other people feel more optimistic about these changes. Clive Thompson points out that this has been happening for many years now even before technology and states: “Humanity has always relied on coping devices to handle the details for us. We’ve long stored knowledge in books and on paper and post-it notes”. Only that nowadays it has been change to technology that help us in those areas. Clive truly believes that the Internet will help grow the intelligence abilities in the human mind. And we believe that it can help us improve; we are not saying it’s good because it still has some negative impact in our brain but if used the right way it can help us grow in a positive way.

Zach Wener-Fligner (2015) in his article ‘Study: Googling Gives You an Inflated Sense of Your Own Intelligence’ says that thanks to the Internet gathering information through search engines such as Google has made things easier to access. The researchers at Yale conducted an experiment in which participants had to answer a few questions in which each one uses a search engine or a given text so that after the experiment they would rate themselves. Outstandingly the one who use search engines thought highly of themselves and superior. As a result, people will think that they know everything thanks to the Internet. The reason why they think that is probably because they can access information with so little effort, they believe they already knew it. On the other hand, searching by book is more effort. Matthew Fisher confirms that those who don’t know the answer it quite clear that they really don’t know. He states: “With the Internet, the lines become blurry between what you know and what you think you know”.

This all due to what researchers call ‘cognitive offloading’ as mentioned in Philip and Stéphanie articles. Which is the physical action used to reduce the cognitive demands of a task. For example, programming a phone to remind you of upcoming events that is what is referred to as cognitive offloading.

Zhai Yun Tan (2016) in her article on KQED News says that a former English teacher in Kentucky named Terry Heick noticed that his eighth and ninth grade students immediately went to Google to answer his questions. The first question was: “How does a novel represent humanity?”. What surprised Heick was that they would start Googling the question. With the modern technology as we all know today, like popular personal assistants like Siri and Google. They serve up information before you even know you need it; just with a word you’ll have your answer simple as that. She asks, “If with so much information available, does it make us smarter?”. Compared to previous generation that were not born with availability to the Internet and comparing the generation of today, the so-called ‘Google Generation’ since they are born with it.

Heick wanted his students take their time to think and analyze, find information they need, and evaluate each data they find. He wanted them to analyze the data and look for the information just with one word or as less words as possible, to allow his students to think critically. But the process of critical thinking failed since his students instantly search the answer of the question on Google word by word, eliminating the process of critical thinking.

There is a relative lack of research available to investigate the impact of search engines on our minds, even as our lives are increasingly transformed by technology. Some believe that our brain has so much space to engage in more creative activities, as humans have in the past, thanks to easy access to information. A discussion from Steven Pinker in the New York Times about how our brain will be challenged as new technology is created. He states that the Internet and technology are the things that will keep us smart instead of making us dumb. Daphne Bavelier, a professor at the University of Geneva, wrote in 2011 that we lost the ability of oral memorization when writing was invented, but gained additional reading and text analysis skills.

In 2008 a study commissioned by the British Library found that young people seem to not verify the information when browsing online to see if it is accurate. Another study in 2011 a journal Science showed that when people know they have access to the information, they seem to remember how to access that information instead of remembering themselves.

Michele Nelson, an art teacher at Estes Hills Elementary School in Chapel Hill, N.C., who has been teaching for more than nine years, said that it was obvious that students could no longer read long texts. She states: “They just had a really hard time comprehending if they went to a website that had a lot of information. They couldn’t grasp it. They couldn’t figure out what the important thing was”. Even she has a hard time as well.

On the bright side Gary Small, director of the University of California in Los Angeles Longevity Center, made a study in 2009. They explored brain activity on adults using search engines. He found that those who experience using the Internet; their brains are more active. Small says that the Internet is like a brain exercise that can be good for our mental health. He believes that when they are older, they should use the Internet. The main issue is with younger people in which they misuse the technology. Besides that, he is very excited for new technology.

Heick decided to leave a created TeachThought, a company that produces content to support teachers in innovation in teaching and learning for a 21st century audience. The Internet has tremendous potential for education but the program needs to change appropriately. Because material is so readily available, teachers should not give the knowledge easily and instead concentrate on fostering critical thinking in the students. Heick’s company recently started working with schools and organizations in a few states like North Carolina, Texas and New York, to develop lesson plans. Heick states: “Google really lubricates your access to information, and while that’s great, it makes us have to change the way we think about things”. He recommends making questions Google proof which is a great idea.

In any case, we all have our different opinions based on the Google search engine, like Nicholas Carr, who believe it will not benefit us, and others, like Clive Thompson, who believes that it will help us become smarter. In any case, there are both right in their own ways. That is why we need to learn how to use the Internet and not depend on it. That is why people like Heick want to change this for the better. Google search is not a bad thing it just depends on how we use it. So, we ask that you all make the best choices when using the search engine and remember that our brain is the greatest memory of all.