Conversely, current weaknesses include the hostile internship program environment, and abusive leadership by perpetrators, Graham, and Mr. Chetty. Finally, the over-competitive environment accompanied by the uneven distribution of education levels of team members is an issue that needs to be resolved. Moreover, significant opportunities are present with Google’s advanced software and technology accompanied by the diverse backgrounds of interns allowing them to specialize in their strengths. Google will also have to mitigate threats that are present, namely, from competitor companies which may offer similar or superior internship programs and the negative behaviour from Mr. Chetty.
To rectify identified problems, a set of evaluative criteria, developed as a framework for analyzing the effectiveness and risk-reward ratio of each alternative course of action was deployed. Utilizing a weighted decision matrix to evaluate our alternatives, we first established a list of criteria and proceeded to evaluate each alternative against those criteria. The following measures were determined to be of high importance and were used to evaluate our narrowed selection: Impact on Upper Management, Ease of Implementation, Likelihood of Success and Cost. Additionally, each criterion was given weight from 1 to 5, 1 being the least important and 5 being the most important, in regards to fulfilling our goal of addressing the key issues of this case.
Each criterion plays a role equal to its weight, for example, the Likelihood of Success was assigned a relative weight of 4; this criterion was highly weighted because it was considered by far the most impactful criterion that will satisfy the objective of the case since it describes whether the alternative will positively change and impact the current state of Google’s organizational structure. Next, ease of implementation was weighted a 3 since actions need to be taken in time for the following year’s internship program. Impact on upper management was weighted a 2 since upper management will be following orders of Google as a whole organization.
Lastly, the cost was weighted a 1 because of the abundance of resources Google offers in support
Next, to calculate the total score of each alternative, the weight of each criterion was multiplied by the weight assigned to each alternative and the four values were added together. This process was repeated for each alternative and the one with the highest overall score is prioritized for implementation. Following calculations, the alternative of implementing diverse, randomly selected teams had an overall score of 37, the highest amongst all others. Therefore, this alternative will be the recommended solution that will be implemented to solve key issues.