Question

urgent

please provide 3 multiple choice questions with correct answers.

Since the early days of Google, people throughout the company have ques- tioned the value of managers. That skepticism stems from a highly techno- cratic culture. As one software engineer, Eric Flatt, puts it, “We are a company built by engi- neers for engineers.” And most engineers, not just those at Google, want to spend their time designing and debugging, not communicating with bosses or supervising other workers’ progress. In their hearts they’ve long believed that management is more de- structive than beneficial, a distraction from “real work” and tangible, goal-directed tasks. A few years into the company’s life, found- ers Larry Page and Sergey Brin actually wondered whether Google needed any managers at all. In 2002 they experimented with a completely flat organiza- tion, eliminating engineering managers in an effort to break down barriers to rapid idea development and to replicate the collegial environment they’d enjoyed in graduate school. That experiment lasted only a few months: They relented when too many people went directly to Page with questions about expense reports, interpersonal conflicts, and other nitty-gritty issues. And as the company grew, the founders soon realized that managers contributed in many other, important ways—for instance, by com- municating strategy, helping employees prioritize projects, facilitating collaboration, supporting career development, and ensuring that processes and sys- tems aligned with company goals. Google now has some layers but not as many as you might expect in an organization with more than 37,000 employees: just 5,000 managers, 1,000 direc- tors, and 100 vice presidents. It’s not uncommon to find engineering managers with 30 direct reports. Flatt says that’s by design, to prevent micromanag- ing. “There is only so much you can meddle when you have 30 people on your team, so you have to fo- cus on creating the best environment for engineers to make things happen,” he notes. Google gives its rank and file room to make decisions and innovate. Along with that freedom comes a greater respect for techni- cal expertise, skillful problem solving, and good ideas than for titles and formal authority. Given the overall indifference to pecking order, anyone making a case for change at the company needs to provide compel- ling logic and rich supporting data. Seldom do em- ployees accept top-down directives without question. Google downplays hierarchy and emphasizes the power of the individual in its recruitment efforts, as well, to achieve the right cultural fit. Using a rigor- ous, data-driven hiring process, the company goes to great lengths to attract young, ambitious self- starters and original thinkers. It screens candidates’ re?sume?s for markers that indicate potential to excel there—especially general cognitive ability. People who make that first cut are then carefully assessed for initiative, flexibility, collaborative spirit, evi- dence of being well-rounded, and other factors that make a candidate “Googley.” So here’s the challenge Google faced: If your highly skilled, handpicked hires don’t value manage- ment, how can you run the place effectively? How do you turn doubters into believers, persuading them to spend time managing others? As it turns out, by applying the same analytical rigor and tools that you used to hire them in the first place—and that they set such store by in their own work. You use data to test your assumptions about management’s merits and then make your case. Analyzing the Soft Stuff To understand how Google set out to prove man- agers’ worth, let’s go back to 2006, when Page and Brin brought in Laszlo Bock to head up the human resources function—appropriately called people operations, or people ops. From the start, people ops managed performance reviews, which included annual 360-degree assessments. It also helped con- duct and interpret the Googlegeist employee survey on career development goals, perks, benefits, and company culture. A year later, with that foundation in place, Bock hired Prasad Setty from Capital One to lead a people analytics group. He challenged Setty to approach HR with the same empirical discipline Google applied to its business operations. Setty took him at his word, recruiting several PhDs with serious research chops. This new team was committed to leading organizational change. “I didn’t want our group to be simply a reporting house,” Setty recalls. “Organizations can get bogged down in all that data. Instead, I wanted us to be hypothesis-driven and help solve company prob- lems and questions with data.” People analytics then pulled together a small team to tackle issues relating to employee well-being and productivity. In early 2009 it presented its ini- tial set of research questions to Setty. One question stood out, because it had come up again and again since the company’s founding: Do managers matter? To find the answer, Google launched Project Oxygen, a multiyear research initiative. It has since grown into a comprehensive program that measures key management behaviors and cultivates them through communication and training. By November 2012, employees had widely adopted the program— and the company had shown statistically significant improvements in multiple areas of managerial effec- tiveness and performance. Google is one of several companies that are ap- plying analytics in new ways. Until recently, organi- zations used data-driven decision making mainly in product development, marketing, and pricing. But these days, Google, Procter & Gamble, Harrah’s, and others take that same approach in addressing human resources needs. (See “Competing on Talent Analyt- ics,” by Thomas H. Davenport, Jeanne Harris, and Jeremy Shapiro, HBR October 2010.) Unfortunately, scholars haven’t done enough to help these organizations understand and improve day-to-day management practice. Compared with leadership, managing remains understudied and undertaught—largely because it’s so difficult to describe, precisely and concretely, what managers actually do. We often say that they get things done through other people, yet we don’t usually spell out how in any detail. Project Oxygen, in contrast, was designed to offer granular, hands-on guidance. It didn’t just identify desirable management traits in the abstract; it pinpointed specific, measurable be- haviors that brought those traits to life. That’s why Google employees let go of their skep- ticism and got with the program. Project Oxygen mir- rored their decision-making criteria, respected their need for rigorous analysis, and made it a priority to measure impact. Data-driven cultures, Google dis- covered, respond well to data-driven change.

Answer 1

Question 1.

At Google it is believed that this is what engineers really want to do

1. Spend time on reporting and discussion with bosses

2. Spend time in collaborating with others and supervise their work

3. Spend time in designing and debugging

4. Spend time on work as well as play which is the right way to work.

Correct Answer-option 3. The same has been mentioned in the write up also option 4 has not been mentioned anywhere and 1 and 2 are incorrect.

Question 2

What has Google done to create a collegial environment for engineers

1. Create a near flat structure with 1 manager on nearly 37 engineers.
2. Google gives power to all its employees for putting up a case of change with compelling logic and supporting data
3. Google recruitment process is focused on hiring the candidate where they see a cultural fit as well.
4. Option 1 and 2
5. All of the above

Correct Answer- option 5 as all the above options are helpful in creating a pleasant work culture.

Question3

How Google develops his managers to fit in the Google culture

1. Using analytics in not just company operations but also to Human resource, and based on analytics groom its prospective employees for better managerial skills.
2. Conducting annual 360 performance review assessment
3. Starting Project Oxygen program, a multiyear research initiative to not just to identify desirable management traits but also behaviors that brought those traits to life.
4. Option 1 and 3
5. All of above

Correct answer- option 4, As conducting 360 performance review is helpful just for managerial assessment and not development.