The Other Side of Google Inc.
Ethical business is a serious concern in modern business. The concept was developed after the industrial revolution, when it was evident that business could go to any length to obtain profits. The aspects of unethical business include environmental degradation, employee exploitation, poor working conditions, workplace discrimination, harassment and tax evasion amongst others. As a result, the businesses condone massive violations threatening the existence of social and physical environments. Today, companies have reversed these practices to maintain their sustainable development. The practices can normally be viewed in either annual or sustainability reports. The practice of ethical business requires businesses reports on areas they are not scoring highly as well. The current paper evaluates the image of Google Inc. as a public company through the prism of existing forms of discrimination with respect to equal employment opportunities.
Google Inc. is a company established in 1998 and currently headquartered in
According to article “Best Companies
The data from Google Inc. indicates gender discrimination with the company preferring male to female employees. According to Google, the company’s workforce consists of 70% of male employees, and only 30% of female ones (“Making Google” 1). In work assignments, men still have dominant roles. For instance, jobs requiring technological skills involve 83% of male employees compared 17% of female employees. Non-technical jobs involve 52% of male and 48% of female workers. Finally, the situation with leadership positions resembles the one with technical jobs where 79% of leadership positions are appointed to male workers, while 21% is covered by female ones. Therefore, Google still maintains old schools’ thoughts of confining women to certain positions as non-technical jobs.
Vivex Wadwha, an analyst within the telecommunication industry, notes that half of software specialists in the
With respect to race, 61% of Google employees are white, 30% Asians, 2% black and 3% Hispanic (“Making Google” 1). The remaining employees are of mixed races. In both male and female categories, the majority of the jobs are held by the white people. There are, however, no Latinos or native
The U.S Equal Employment
Benefit from Our Service: Save 25% Along with the first order offer - 15% discount, you save extra 10% since we provide 300 words/page instead of 275 words/page
In addition to the company being biased in favor of men, it has faced yet another suit for providing different working conditions for male and female employees. The female employees were allowed to work at home, while male employees had to work at their company stations (Efrati and Koppel 1). Thus, the benefit to the minority group became an example of employee discrimination. The extent to which equality is measured for both genders remains paradoxical since judgment is place personalities yet sexual orientation is completely different.
The image of Google Inc. in the eyes of the general public and employees continues to be strong. It is because the company is an attractive workplace for employment seekers. The social and economic context within which Google operates is more personalized than on a group basis. That is, the company presents its products as a personal brand. The same relates to compensation and other benefits to employees. Thus, an assumption can be made that the individuals taking part in the survey from the public or the employees made their choices in accordance with individual perception of the company. However, Hofstede and Hofstede relate this status quo to power distribution (1). Power distribution describes how inequality and discrimination is accepted in various parts of the world. As a result, the management and the less powerful employees accept the power distribution on the basis of gender and inequality. The theory identifies masculinity as attached to modesty, while femininity is associated with care (Aryee, Chris, Tae-Yeol, and Seongmin 795). This theory reverses the suit by men for discrimination and strengthens the view of female discrimination by Google. The idea of female employees working at home is viewed as the one connected with other old school feminine functions like cleaning and so forth.
Further, Google employees are not members of any workers union. As a result, the possibility of collision connected with the release of the numbers on organizational diversity remains an administrative issue. Thus, over the years, Google has managed to keep the public and employees in the dark on the proportion of its workforce with regard to age, gender and sexual orientation (Google Inc. 18).
In conclusion, the brand of Google products and good treatment of individual employees has made Google Inc. the most admirable company for both the public and employees. However, if to take organizational diversity into consideration, it becomes obvious that the company does not very well with respect to gender and racial equality. The company is dominated by men and white people. The notion of no “person of color” and the fact that there are only three women in senior management are an indication of this issue. Further, women are mostly appointed to non-technical jobs; yet, over 50% of the software labor force include women. With this information in the public view, it will be important to see whether Google will retain its top position as the best company to work for in 2015.