10_Google+and+Transformational+Leadership+section

Google and Transformational Leadership
In //Full leadership development: Building the vital forces in organizations,// Avolio (1999) draws a distinction between transactional and transformational leadership. He explains that transactional leaders “offer inducements to move in the direction desired by the leaders” and “exchange promises of reward for cooperation and compliance from their followers to get the task done” (pp. 35-36). Avolio argues that the resulting transaction-focused environment is risk averse and not conducive to innovation, as followers fear making mistakes and are less likely to explore unfamiliar avenues.

In contrast, transformational leaders “encourage those around them to question, to use their full intellectual capitol, and to not fear questioning those things that are most established nor those issues with which they are most closely aligned” (p. 35). Avolio’s view is that this open, questioning environment encourages innovation and offers followers more opportunities to reach their potential.

The definition of the transformational leader is expanded on by Boerner et al. (2007), who define transformational leaders as those that “inspire followers to achieve extraordinary outcomes by providing both meaning and understanding” (p. 15).

Boerner et al. (2007) identify four components of transformational leadership: idealized influence; inspirational motivation; intellectual stimulation; and individualized consideration. These components can be seen to relate to Google's leadership practices in a number of ways.

In the **idealized influence** component, leaders act as role models, share risks, consider followers’ needs, and behave in a “manner consistent to articulated ethics, principles and values” (Boerner et al., 2007, p. 16). At Google p eople commit one day a week to their heart's projects - and even when these projects do not shape to become commercially viable initiatives the company still celebrates and values the learning experience that they produce. Google’s practice of celebrating mistakes by “recognizing teams who tried something but failed” (Klie, 2010, para. 8) at annual award ceremonies speaks to the organization’s commitment to innovation and its willingness to share risks.

Google's approach to management circles around the idea that theirs is a leadership of influence and not of position. Google understands that creative and independent thinking of its employees is its core asset. Maguire states that: "It's all about freeing people to exercise their full potential within their teams and projects." (2010, para. 1).

Leaders provide **inspirational motivation** through displaying enthusiasm and optimism and encouraging followers to “envision attractive future states” (Boerner et al., p. 16). Klie reports that Google leaders “share all the information they can with employees about where the company is going and any challenges it might be facing,” and broadcast information to employees worldwide on a weekly basis (2010, para. 11). This transparency is consistent with the view of Avolio & Bass (2002) that transformational leaders “establish the vision and communicate it in a way that helps people link their day-to-day work with the organization's strategic objectives” (p. 92).

In an online commentary by Rich Karlgaard on the //Googled// book, by Ken Auletta (Forbes.com http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/23/ken-auletta-leadership-intelligent-technology-google.html) we find a common opinion about Eric Schmidt, the official CEO of Google until March 2010, who was never thought of as an "inspiring leader" before or while he had been working for the company. Both Google founders thought that Eric was not what one would call an "inspirational leader". Brought in by Moritz, one of Google'e earliest supporters, Eric and Google's founders had much to be troubled by emotionally speaking. And their approach came from totally different perspectives. It seems that the revenue-making machine that Google later became, owes a lot to a mixture of upper management styles, and that, maybe due to its enormous growth and impact as a critical player in the world economy and internet world landscape, it takes more than one approach to leadership to break into the realm of success.

Leaders who question assumptions, reframe problems, and avoid criticism of mistakes are providing the **intellectual stimulation** component of transformational leadership. Douglas Merril, CIO and VP of Engineering at Google, explained that the culture at Google provided intellectual stimulation through dialogue and even "supportive" conflict: "We argue about strategy and whether our products are good or bad. We argue about everything. But you want conflict to thrive in a supportive way" (Salter, 2008, March 1, Douglas Merrill section, para. 3).

Engineering Director David Glazer explains that the Google philosophy to product development allows employees to move ahead with ideas even if the best way forward isn't clear. "We set an operational tempo: When in doubt, do something. If you have two paths and you're not sure which is right, take the fastest path . . . It's easier to keep moving and change course than when you're sitting and thinking and thinking" (Salter, 2008, February 19, Setting the Operational Tempo section, para. 1).

Google’s support for employees spending 20% of their time on personal projects which might never be monetized also suggests that Google supports employees in their need for intellectual stimulation. Joe Beda, a Google engineer explains why the 20 percent time rule works for Google. "It isn't a matter of doing something in your spare time, but more of actively making time for it." (Vise, 2008, The Google Story, p. 139). This specific allocation of time to pursue personal projects is in fact not only a encouragement from the leadership side, but a fundamental belief that individual creativity requires specific space and time to flourish. And the intellectual stimulation derives from the team-players approach of Google, where project teams remain fundamentally small even as the company grows to global dimensions.

Intellectual stimulation also appears to correlate to job satisfaction and increased commitment to the organization. Transformational leaders inspire employees at such a deep level, a value level, that followers go beyond what is expected of them and commit to the organization mission and goals. Walumbwa, Wang, Lawler and Shi state that it has been empirically proven that "This charge to seek new ways to approach problems and challenges motivates followers to become more involved in their duties, resulting in an increase in the levels of satisfaction with their work and commitment to the organization. (2004, Walumba et al., p. 515).


 * Individualized consideration** is offered through new learning and development opportunities, and mentoring by leaders. Liane Hornsey, VP People Operations at Google, put considerable effort into developing a Learning and Development Department at Google, in order to provide professional development opportunities for employees. Hornsey describes the department as having “a whole strategy around project working, coaching, development, talent managing, succession planning, blended learning, and so on” (Holbeche, 2009, p. 106).

On the "Top ten reasons to work at Google" page, the statement " There are hundreds of challenges yet to solve. Your creative ideas matter here and are worth exploring. You’ll have the opportunity to develop innovative new products that millions of people will find useful" (Top ten, n.d. para. 9) speaks to Google's commitment to supporting employee development.

Kunzte and Matulich (2010) tell us that Google instills in its employees the credo that it isn’t about the money- rather that theirs is a lifestyle that breeds innovative superiority over the competition (p. 2). One additional piece of evidence that the heart of Google's leadership style is getting at the core values that drive employees to give their best to the company, knowing that the company will truly do what it can to foster and atmosphere of support, creativity and innovation, not just in what many have come to call "the fluff", the extras, but with true processes and structures.