Diversity in the workforce is one of the major priorities of Google. It has been acknowledged that this approach is effective as a diverse workforce is a key to the company’s success due to the diversity of opinions, approaches, and views (Torrington et al. 2014). Google tries to hire people with diverse backgrounds focusing on the applicants’ professional qualities and skills rather than such features as gender, race or education (Wendland 2014). At the same time, many companies use quotas to increase diversity in their workplaces. Thus, EU countries plan to introduce legislature and to make companies reveal their diversity targets, which can lead to the spread of the practice of using quotas (Bloodworth 2013). Since Google is an international company (and the USA can also focus on particular diversity targets), the organization may face the need to use quotas when hiring people.
However, Google is reluctant to employ this approach. The company only occasionally reveals its data on diversity in specific reports (Weise 2014). There are no quotas in the recruitment process of the organization. At the same time, there can be a discussion of the matter within the company. Thus, it is clear that there is a lack of diversity in Google as 79% of leaders are males and 61% of all employees are white with 30% of Asians, 3% of Hispanics and 2% of African Americans (Weise 2014). This may negatively affect the further performance of the company and it is especially harmful for the organization’s image as the contemporary society is very sensitive when it comes to gender and racial issues. Therefore, quotas during the hiring process seem quite an effective and rapid way to achieve better diversity in the workplace.
Nonetheless, HR professionals of the company seem to understand that quotas may limit their choices and hurt the employees’ performance. Google’s HR professionals try to achieve better diversity through “better outreach” and “training of current staff” (Weise 2014). Hence, the company may still focus on the professional qualities of applicants rather than their gender or race. At the same time, the organization allows all ambitious people to move within the company.
This situation provides several valuable lessons. First, there can be no easy decisions when it comes to diversity and the use of quotas is quite a controversial practice. It is possible to assume that quotas, especially during the hiring process, may lead to inadequate outcomes. Secondly, there are numerous alternatives to using quotas. For instance, training and encouragement of employees can help minorities to become better represented in the company’s workforce. Finally, it is also important to remember that diversity is a complex issue and imposing some laws and regulations can negatively affect the development of businesses.
It is possible to provide certain recommendations. Google should be more transparent and reveal its data on diversity. It can also give certain diversity targets, which are not very different from the existing numbers. People will see that the company is working on improving diversity in its workforce. Of course, there should be no quotas during the hiring process, but it can be beneficial to develop certain programs to encourage different minorities to apply more actively. Working with particular populations among young people (in colleges, through social networks and so on) can be very efficient.
Reference List
Bloodworth, M 2013, ‘EU may force UK companies to reveal gender diversity targets’, The Guardian 19 August, Web.
Torrington, D, Hall, L, Taylor, S & Atkinson, C 2014, Human resource management, Pearson Education Limited, Harlow.
Weise, E 2014, ‘Google discloses its (lack of) diversity’, USA Today Web.
Wendland, J 2014, ‘Google recruitment process’, Telco Exec. Web.