HR google case study Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 3000 words

HR google case study - Essay Example In human resource management studies theories do not match exactly with the observations of the reality. These divergences between the reality and the theory are described by the largely by the chaos theory. Almost all business houses use this theory to manage their internal human resources. But some of them apply their own understanding of the theory and management system. Google is one of those business houses which are more concerned about applying their own style of chaos management. This paper tries to evaluate Google’s chaos management style and its advantages and disadvantages and also tries to judge whether this strategy can be sustainably used in the future. Importance of chaos management style: Chaos management style is not a new concept. In 1988 Tom Peter, in his book Thriving on Chaos: Handbook for a Management Revolution, has shown the importance of the theory in management theories. During this era most of the businesses and managers were in the same line regardi ng their view on chaos in the management. They have argued that chaos needs to be avoided at any cost. Chaos in the management system was one of the most hated concepts by the managers and businesses. But once managers have realised that they have to survive in the new, fast-growing world they have to learn more about the theory and to apply it in the context of their businesses. With the disappearance of the ordered working class, electrical type writers and mailing posts the need for understanding and need to apply the theory in favour of the growth of businesses started to rise. In this regard the company that has learnt used the theory was Goolge. The company has used the theory at large in their human resource management strategies and has increased its profits and revenues to great extent (Googling out of control: Can Google’s chaos management style ensure continuing success?, 2007, p.25). Brief history of Google: Larry Page and Sergey Brin, two graduate students at Sta nford University in California, developed Google as a search engine as part of their graduate research project. In 1996 Google was first introduced as a search engine in Stanford University’s internal wed sites. From 1998 it became the complete commercial company. After its foundation it became the largest search engine company in the world. Google and chaos management system: Google is a prominent example of the company that has used chaos and has succeeded to earn profits from it. With the advent of use of new technologies in the businesses the need for the theory increased at a large scale. While traditional businesses were more concerned about manufacture, sale and distribute goods and services, modern businesses use technologies at large scales and their companies cover large areas of businesses. Hence, the need for understanding and using the theory is more for them. Rapid uses of Internet, cell phones, fax, photocopies have made all these businesses to apply the theory . Hence, people started to use the theory in different internal and external structures of their business organisations. Google understands this fact and starts to apply the theory in its human resource management section and have gained large benefits. The chaos management system is one of the most important ways to handle the modern working environment â€Å"where information ‘‘storms’’ can create information overload†

Political Ideology Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2500 words

Political Ideology - Essay Example However, Alexandre Kojve, describe the platonic ideology not only as the science of ideas but also as a science of object reality in his Essai d'une histoire raisonne de la philosophie paenne (vol. II, Platon et Aristote). Pierre Daunou, Constantin-Franois Volney, Pierre Cabanis, and Dominique Garat, claims to be an ideology as Destutt de Tracy, but the term was used to belittler or express disapprover of it by Napoleon and Franois Ren de Chateaubriand. [1] Also, Karl Marx, present ideology as a critical sense that displayed the opposition between the noble senses given to ideology by Destutt de Tracy, which is having a negative meaning. In Germany, ideology, as an expression of alienation and it is essentially incapable of dialectical relationship that unit or resist those representation. Ideology would then be seen as the discourse of a class, a party, or an association that seeks to cultural achievement, political post, economic, intellectual, spiritual, or other domination over society and individuals. Communist are different from other working class because they point out and bring about the common interest of the entire proletariat, independently of the citizen, they represent the interest of the movement entirely. As a result of this, Marx's and Engels' view that Communist were not a partisan attachment to any form of organization, but only to the working class beyond it and the class as a whole. Successful or not, Marx and Enge ls have never for a day played a full time political leader of a party organization or active leader of mass working class organization or elite vanguards, unlike Kautsky, Lenin, or Mao. They only serve as an intellectual to the emerging German Social Democrats and other working-class parties in Europe. Engels, work did more than marx's to attract and convert people to the must influential political parties or movement of the modern times. As a result of this, we can absurd to say that Engels invented Marxism. He was not only the first Marxist historian, but also an anthropologist, philosopher, and commentator on the early Marx. Presently, Marx and engels are protected from being denounced by certain activists as hypocritical idealist whose political knowledge is at variance with their theory. The communist in the world today are very few because those who think they are communist are deeply involve in political groups that demand primary loyalty to themselves rather than to the working class. Whereby the definition of political ideology of both Marx and Engels, which is in the interest of the working class as a whole, turns out never to be at variance with the interests of their own political party. [13] On the other hand, Gramsci depart from the definition of hegemony that was widely accept by Marxist during the worldwide economic depression in the early 30s, when Marxism theory failed in most advanced capitalist nations of the west. This was considered by Lenin to be a strategy of political leadership in the democratic revolution where leadership was base on a fundamental alliance with the peasantry. He did not