- Critically evaluate the performance of groups within Googles’ work culture. - Discuss the concept of empowerment and its relevance to Google. - Discuss what management problems you and your team foresee that Google faces in the next few years in order to remain competitive. - Through your research discuss the success/failure of any other organisation which you consider to be similar in structure and managerial philosophy to Google.

1. KCB IDs: 14478, 14486, 14507, 14508
University of Wales
(Kensington Collage of Business)
MBA
MODULE TITLE: MANAGING PEOPLE
GROUP ASSINGMENT TITLE:
Examine the success of Google.com and report on the following
management issues
(Questions 1,2,3, and 4)
LECTURER NAME: JAS NAIDOO
KCB IDs: 14478, 14486, 14507, 14508
DATE OF SUBMISSION: 11/03/2011
0

2. KCB IDs: 14478, 14486, 14507, 14508
Question-1: Critically evaluate the performance of groups within Googles’ work culture.
This paper will discuss performance of groups in the following paragraphs, the impact of Control,
Hygiene, Maslow Theories and Cultural Diversity on performance teams within Google’s work
culture. The member of this kind of team should go through professional teaching to make them to
have comprehensive information of group dynamics, gathering information and critical thinking.
According to Goffman `performance` may be defined as all the activity of a given participant on a
given occasion which serves to influence in any way, any of the other participants.
Culture (Control Theory)
Handy (1985) evaluated the effort of Roger Harrison as culture is associated with Organizational
Structure and Culture. Google is consisted of task culture in which teams are established to solve
particular problems. Power comes from expertise. These cultures often present the multiple
reporting lines of a matrix structure.
Control theory, developed by Hamilton in 1922, managers have a finite amount of time, energy, and
attention to devote their job. As they are close to supreme head of the whole organization, Google
uses control theory by working groups in three (triumvirate), they act and decide quickly. By this
way, they managed hundreds of projects all at once.
Motivation-Hygiene Theory
Herzberg (1959) developed the motivation-hygiene theory which shows the factors causing job
satisfaction and dissatisfaction.
a)Hygiene Factors:
Pay and benefits: Google increased the salaries and it is taken as tactics of human resources in order
to prevent the employees move to other firms, such as Facebook. The base 10 percent salary boost
applied to each Google workers.250 percent bonuses of the base salary is applied to top executives.
Half of bonuses are based on individual performances and the other half will be financial
performances.
Status: The engineers are brainiest on globe and they are happy to work with the best and brightest
people in their field in a collegial, cooperative atmosphere. Stanford Ph.D.s are so common. It affects
Google culture.
Supervision: They work in small groups and they manage their own projects. Having self-discipline
inside a mini-dot.com boom company is difficult. In this case, adult supervision will always be
needed.
Interpersonal Relations: Google ended up employing many AltaVista engineers, who made enormous
contributions to Google’s success. According to cultural diversity theory, diversity is high such as;
rivals’ engineers, best engineers in the world, gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transsexual employees,
women engineers, black network, employees from different nationalities. All disappears national
boundaries to strenghten the company’s retention programs. They don’t have strict rules. Disputes
are common, but points are won or lost. Employees are happy and respectful to each other.
Company Policy-Administration: Google feels small while growing rapidly. The other company
principles are; `work should be fun`, `It’s best to do one thing really, really well`, `fast is better than
slow`, `you can make money without doing evil`, `you can be serious without a suit`, `always deliver
more than expected`. They spend 20 percent of their time working on what they think will most
benefit Google. This drives them to be more creative and their goal is to change the world.
Work Conditions: They supply first class facilities to their workers such as; free fabulous food, dining
facilities, gyms, laundry rooms, massage rooms, haircuts, carwashes, dry cleaning, wide variety
1

3. KCB IDs: 14478, 14486, 14507, 14508
insurance programs, employee assistance plan, retirement and savings plan, holidays, college
savings plan, time away vacation, maternity benefits, take-out benefits, tuition reimbursement,
employee referral program, back-up child care, on-site doctor and other great benefits.
Job Security: They have wide variety insurance programs such as; dental insurance, vision insurance,
life and AD insurance, voluntary life insurance, short term & long term disability insurance, business
travel accident insurance, employee retirement and savings plan.
Google gives importance to quality of work life, give effrot to value their engineers and be respectful
to them. Google create a desired work environment and the world’s worker of choice. As job
satisfaction is too high, the success of the company is one of the highest companies all around the
world. Page said `happy people are more productive`. The effectiveness and productivity of work
increase substantially when employees are satisfied with their performance.
b)Motivators:
Achievement: The accomplishment period is quick and achievement is more personal in small
groups. People from different nationalities and different cultures use their products. David Friedberg
explained that good employing is crucial for Google’s achievement. `There are certain types of
people where it is not about the money. And the firm employes those kinds of people.`
Recognittion for achievement: With of visitors every month, Google has become an essential part of
everyday life, -like a good friend-connecting people. The brand is famous all around the world with
its global success.
Work itself: Workers performing within Google should have the freedom to talk about their own
thoughts and ideas, use them in practice to bring considerable profits to the firm and its employees.
Responsibility: Each member of Google workers carry high responsibilities of managing the group
task because they are so intelligent. Each employees can change the world so responsibility is very
high.
Advancement: The employees at Google are all bright, impatient, ambitious people and they want
to be CEO from the first date of their career starts. In terms of rewarding pschology and motivation;
Google approved `Founders’ Award` for employees for a while to the people who show
entrepreneurial achievement, in order to keep them at the firm but the application didn’t work and
changed with delivering smaller prizes because some the workers felt overlooked at the company.
Growth: Google is fast growing start-ups. Google is the technology leader in organizing the world’s
information. Each employee can feel their professional growth as they deal with new challenges in
their group performance.
As the company is famous, unique, fast growing and successful; motivation is very high at the
company. Google is far beyond their rivals and the employees feel themselves special, important,
happy and highly motivated.
Maslow Theory
The work of Maslow makes the point that needs are organized on a priority basis. As basic needs
become relatively satisfied the higher needs come to the fore and become motivating influences.
Physiological, safety, social, esteem, self-actualization. Google satisfied employees’ all needs
included self-actuailization and accomplishment levels. Google created a desirable work
atmosphere for its employees to make them more happy and creative. This directly effects the
group effectiveness in a positive way.
2

4. KCB IDs: 14478, 14486, 14507, 14508
Question-2: Discuss the concept of empowerment and its relevance to Google.
Empowerment is the process of authorizing employees to debate, analysis, take action, decision
making, keep under-control the management and make some corrective activities via taking
decisions in independent ways.
This is a new atmosphere for the company which authorize employees to become more creative and
force them to take more responsibilities. Consequently, the more contribution for the company.
Empowerment concepts are one of the hardest criteria to implement for the companies. The main
problem is that executives has lack of information which provides understanding problem about
what is empowerment and how the implementation going to become. It should be embraced and
celebrated as a critical element in the formula for success.
Generally, perception of management is controlling people and forcing them to work under-pressure
and when they see the result of people who has no self-confidence to say something which makes
company more proactive; managers think that this is a big success which they have done well.
Nowadays, there are companies which are exaggerating controlling employees for instance limited
toilet breaks, standing behind while you are working, strict warning even being late for 5 minutes
and so on. Managers do not hesitate to put you down and behaving you like a robot. On the other
hand, the expectation of the high level of the work without appreciation.
Google denied to acting as many companies do. Google provides flexible work policy that allows
staffs to work freely and forces, encourages staffs to use once a week to discover any sort of
interesting projects individually, is fine and probably not harmful, if unpredictable. After all, Google
is not the first high profitable, non-mature, fast-growing organisation to tell its staffs that work
shouldn't feel `corporate`. Likewise, it's practically a tradition for such policies to be scaled back if
and when growth and profits slow. For the company, this situation seems unlikely in soon, but
longer-term it'd been bet such flexibility will indeed be curtailed.
Google has implemented a Formula which they have generated. The formula is 70-20-10; if we need
to open it: This rule means they have free time to spend on their current assignments which is 70%.
On their related projects 20% and the rest which is 10% on new project where they want. 70-20-10
formula is a guide for management but it enables also employees to take risks. Instead of normal
and also formal channel Google’s management perception forces and encourages employees to
work directly with each other. Open communication Google’s provides to the organization and idea
policy is managerial feature which is one of the most important. It provides the employees a sense
that they can contribute to the Google’s business goals.
Google let employees set their own goals instead of company’s mutual goals. Google sees managers
not for controlling employees and feel them like they are under-pressure. Google sees their
managers as a leader to empower their employees. Employees set their goals and make evaluations
quarterly basis and in that chain managers’ duty is to make recommendations in order to be reached
the goals by employees. Managers are acting as supervisors on the other hand employees` feels like
they are leaders because they are setting their own goals. This provides more contribution in
company. Google let the employees determine their own parameters on their tasks and duties and
encourage to the leader of their own. Google wants their employees to think loud in order to get
more contribution and remove the barriers between departments and also individuals. Every
employee has an access to be in a meeting of every department. That transparency provides every
data to all employees and it helps to determine their goals and also reach their goals. Employees
love to work in Google but not because of good salary and bonuses, employees love the work which
comes from the cross-functional leadership structure.
3

5. KCB IDs: 14478, 14486, 14507, 14508
Google empowers their employees via training , freedom in the company to access every data ,
development, information, let them to discover something which could be beneficial to the
company, freedom to determine their goals, let them to be their own leaders and pieces of mind in
the company. These criteria are the key reasons to be innovative proactive and creative which
company has been targeted via empowerment process. It reflects as dynamism to Google.
Employees also get benefit from these implementations. Employees focus on their own goals which
they have determined and the evaluation the progress per quarter of the year, this implementation
removes the harmful effect of under-pressure. Hiring new employees is one of the ways of
empowerment for Google but the process of being employee of Google is quiet comprehensive. The
methodology of Google is unconventional. Company investigates all talents in universities and when
they find a talent, they try to hunt it, so Microsoft does.
The group of recruitment team in Google is quiet big and team consists of high number of company
workers and they decide the level of training stage during the on boarding period. New employees
place in small groups and in order to speed up the adaptation period and also absorbing the
company culture.
The data of the 100 Best Company to Work for 2007 of FORTUNE defined that Google is the top best
company to work for. This explains that how a successful structure Google has and also this is the
proof of right empowerment policy.
Question-3: Discuss what management problems you and your team foresee that Google
faces in the next few years in order to remain competitive.
What has Google done for just 12 years to become the 4th best valued brand on 2010 (Interbrand,
2010), to hire 20.621 high skilled employees (Google Financial Tables, 2010), to become the 4th best
company to work for (Fortune, 2010) and so on? Matrix management structure, task culture, the
concept of empowerment, providing the motivation and satisfying of its highly skilled people
resources and the workplace democracy which all have been successfully followed by Google as its
management approach can be described as its recipe for complexity or chaos in remained
competitive business world. On the other hand will these doings be sustainable for Google in beyond
chaotic and random business world?
The Google co-founders Page&Brin, the businessmen who have never gone to business school but
have the shared success vision, have attempted the projects by using their own and their employees’
distinctive dynamic competences and competitive advantages which occur on the market. Starting
up the business by filling the existed lack of well search engine, hiring the top talented engineers
while they were unemployed because of the explosion of the bubble of technology companies on
2000, hiring Schmidt as a CEO on 2001 to structure the internal management have been the
milestones of Google. As it’s defined on `Ten Things of Google`, one of their motto is “It’s the best to
do one thing really, really well” by hiring really, really well engineers. According to Google’s
locomotive motto, which is “Don’t be evil”, Google shares its success with its stakeholders. It’s a
magnet for top talented engineers to working in Google because of the perks such as ‘Founders
Awards`, ’70-20-10 Formula / Flexible Work Time’, encouraging employees entrepreneurship, cross-
functional management structure, being among the top talented engineers and so on. Google realize
that its engineers are the distinctive asset over its competitors, and the engineers realize that
working in Google is distinctive from the others. This can be defined as a magical spiral which brings
the success and wealthy. Google receives over 100 top talented applicants for every opened position
and the hiring process takes months.
By hiring of Schmidt, the company has been structured in its unique matrix management structure
which provides to organisation effectively managing wide variety of projects by wide range of highly
4

6. KCB IDs: 14478, 14486, 14507, 14508
skilled people resources. It has been said that by Schmidt “... putting the right business and
management structure around the vision and gem ...” have brought the success of Google. (Jarvis,
2009). The matrix management has early formed on defence industry which had faced high
challenges to rapidly create more complex military equipment, during the World War 2 spread all
over the world. The most highly skilled and intelligent people such as engineers, mathematicians and
scientists were pooled for work assignments by being assigned to multiple projects while they were
working on a project. Thus, each person might have to have multiple reporting lines, both vertical
and horizontal, against the conventional definition of management principles about unity of
command that addresses the employee should receive commands from one line only and should
report to one line only. (Fayol, 1916) The mandatory of the rapidly and closely coordination of the
projects at all levels have brought the necessity of the multidirectional commands and
multidirectional communications.
Schmidt reformed the coordination and communication of working teams effectively to meet the
rapid expansion of the organisation in order to remain competitive. The task culture which has small
team approach, highly skilled and specialists in their own experienced area and multidirectional
communication (Handy, 1985) has harmonised with already existed empowerment and providing
the high level motivation and satisfaction of its employees.
The existing management can be faced any possible issues because of the natural drawbacks of the
matrix management structure and the treats from its rivals such as big companies like Microsoft or
rapidly growing entrepreneurial companies which can be attractive for Geeks to work for.
The main drawbacks can be defined as the insufficiency of management to communicate effectively
among the project groups, the insufficiency of management to resolve power challenges and
conflicts, the lack of clear expectations of employees because of the lack of their interpersonal skills
and misaligned reward and accountability. The small autonomous project groups in Google have
cohesively worked on individual tasks towards to the final result. Every engineer has known what
he/she should do about the particular task. The project managers and the function managers are the
connection nodes of the lines of the work flow from down to top even Page, Brin and Schmidt. There
is a harmony of management from top to down because of the interpersonal skills and formal
structure however it seems informal. The highly consultative decision making have contributed to
have constructive conflicts. The system benefits from the hardness of the micromanagement of
highly skilled engineers but from their interpersonal skills and their knowledge. The well structured
reward and accountability system helps to retain the top talented engineers.
Google’s HR department is very important to sustain its success on the market against its rivals and
to sustain its attractiveness to work for. If the department accidently doesn’t attach importance to
the strict hiring process of engineers and causes of hiring inferior engineers, it can cause to wreck
the Google’s attractiveness among the top talented engineers who are defined its distinctive
intangible asset by Google. The period of wrecking by maggots takes long time, maybe a decade.
During this period the maggots can be very successful hiding themselves and converting others. The
constructive conflicts may convert to deconstructive conflicts because of the culture of rising to the
occasion. The deconstructive conflicts may break the team spirit and may cause of not desiring to
attend project teams in which the engineers cannot require permission to switch. The coordination
and multidirectional communication may be injured. The project teams may start to dumbing-down
as well Google itself. The broken of attractiveness to work for may cause of inability to hire top
talented engineers and may reinforce the dumbing-down. For managing the poor interpersonal
skilled and inferior engineers, Google may slowly switch to micromanagement which reduce the
creativity which is essential for Google’s competition against its rivals.
5

7. KCB IDs: 14478, 14486, 14507, 14508
On the other hand, the human beings don’t get satisfaction even he/she has many distinctive
opportunities from the others. Even if Google’s work conditions and perks seem attractive and
satisfying for employees, some employees can think of misaligned reward and accountability. Once
an employee thinks he/she faced unfairness, it badly effects his/her work motivation. Becoming the
more key role of employee for the company may cause have the more expectation especially if
he/she is top talented. This situation may cause seeking different opportunities such as having much
more perks by working for Google’s rivals or becoming an entrepreneur to be like Google’s co-
founders. Again Google may slowly and deliberately switch to micromanagement in which the
engineers cannot require permission to control themselves on the tasks.
Finally, the shared vision between the co-founders, Page&Brin, and the CEO, Schmidt, has been the
locomotive of success of the management. The harmony amongst them has encouraged whole the
company from top to down to growing rapidly and sustainably. If the harmony breaks down because
of any reason such as serious deconstructive conflicts amongst them or health problems which can
cause demoralisation, Google may face to slow down on growing rapidly. Slowing down may spread
on a long period at dynamic, rapidly growing companies which are still managed by first generation
top management such as Google. For example the health problem of Steve Jobs, may have caused to
slow down on growing of Apple in a period, maybe in a decade, if the prevention won’t be taken
against this situation.
Although it has been plotted some fast tracks to disaster for Google, it has been thinking that Google
has had preventions not to have fast tracks to disaster even in a long period.
Question-4: Through your research discuss the success/failure of any other organisation
which you consider to be similar in structure and managerial philosophy to Google.
There are lots of companies which has similar organisational structure and managerial philosophy
with Google in the business world. Especially these companies are multinational companies which
have common organisational problems and difficulties. All these companies have difficulties to
respond market changes and their competitors’ actions. In addition to this, these organisations` solid
hierarchical structure causes to make counter-moves to their competitors. Matrix organisational
structure gives many possibilities to the companies to cope with these problems and also increase
the employees’ satisfaction.
Procter&Gamble has a similar organisational structure like this such as Google. It has been wanted
to analyse Procter&Gamble’s success or failure of its organisational structure because it has been
thought that it is a good example. Procter&Gamble has changed and restructured its organisation in
1999. This makes this company easier to analyse its success or failure after this new structure.
Procter&Gamble is an American worldwide company which is established in 1837. It contains many
well-known brands, such as Ariel, Braun, Gillette and Duracell. The company had some problems in
the year 2000’s first half. The company’s expected earnings growth rate was 14%. But it was too
much line under this expectation and had just half of this rate. Although, Procter&Gamble was
announced an enormous decrease its net profit in April 2000, for the period of January-March 2000.
According to this situation, “Organization 2005” program has been announced and launched by Durk
Jager, Procter&Gamble’s CEO, in July 1999. This was a plan for six year length and provided a lot of
changes in Procter&Gamble’s organizational structure. Program was included the standardization of
work processes, revamping the organizational culture, reduction in hierarchies to enable faster
decision-making, and retrenchment of employees. But the implementation of “Organisation 2005”
program was not easy. The CEO, Jager, wanted to do so many changes in a short period. But he
couldn’t become successful and gave his post up in 2000; 17 months after starting the “Organisation
2005“program. Alan George Lafley took over the Jager’s position. He also believed that the company
6

8. KCB IDs: 14478, 14486, 14507, 14508
needs a new organisational structure which easily responds the market changes and ease the new
products innovation to mature market structure. He believed that the program was well-enough but
the implementation of this program had mistakes. And he decided to continue perform the program
in his way.
Procter&Gamble’s organisational success or failure has to be evaluated in two main parts. The first
past should be success or failure about during implementation of this restructuring program
between 1999 and 2005. Second part should be the Procter&Gamble’s success or failure depending
on the new organisational structure after 2005. This system will help us both understanding of how
restructuring a new organisation is difficult and whether this new organisation structure is beneficial
to the company or not. It is believed that whether a company is successful or not, it has to be
analysed the company’s growth an acceptable rate or not also its profitability growth.
As it was mentioned before, Jager, CEO, gave up his position in the company according to the
Procter&Gamble’s dissatisfactory current position. While he was leaving his position he said, “I am
proud of the vision we set out to achieve with Organization 2005, and we've made important
progress. It's unfortunate our progress in stepping up top-line sales growth resulted in earnings
disappointments" (CNN Money, P&G CEO Quits Amid Woes, June 8, 2000). Immediately after stating
to launch the program “Organisation 2005”, the company still had financial problems.
Procter&Gamble’s shares were $117 in January 2000 but the stock fell below $90 a share in February
and also Procter&Gamble’s earnings dropped 10%. The expected earnings growth was a rise by 7%.
This financial situation effected the implementation of “Organisation 2005” program. It can be said
that it was a failure for the Procter&Gamble but it has been had to consider that to change the
company’s whole organisation structure is not easy. Procter&Gamble is a big company and has lots
of employees. To decide and implement such a program has too many dangerous. One of the biggest
dangers is the employee’s dissatisfaction. Because it has been had to consider not only the
company’s financial position but also you have to consider the employee’s satisfaction. The
employees have to be informed about changes and their future carriers in the organisation. The
employees were informed about the organisation and their morale has not been affected during this
operation. With this point of view Procter&Gamble’s financial lost while the implementation the
“Organisation 2005” program was not big enough to mention about a failure.
After the implementation of the “Organisation 2005” program, the company returned to more
dynamic structure. Innovation of new products became easy for the Procter&Gamble.
Procter&Gamble has very slow and solid hierarchical structure. The “Organisation 2005” program
brought rapid system and the company’s respond to changes in the market more effective and
faster. This new dynamic organisational structure made the Procter&Gamble more powerful than its
competitors during the global recession in last 2 years. Also Procter&Gamble has a very good
position in Fortune’s world most admired companies list from 2006 to 2010. In 2006
Procter&Gamble was the third most admired company in the world. This success is directly related
with the Procter&Gamble’s new organisation structure. Procter&Gamble’s success was not only in
2006 but also continued to 2010. The company was in top 5 during this period of time. In addition to
this Procter&Gamble’s financial position became better than before launching the “Organisation
2005” program. These evidences can show us new organisation structure has added much to the
company and its current position among its competitors.
In conclusion, although some difficulties and problems with implementation to this new
organisational structure to the company, Procter&Gamble had been successful. The new
organisational structure has many visible evidences which can show its success. Organisational
structure of the company has gained a new and fresh look escaping from the awkward structure.
Innovation of the new products has been easier. In addition to this, satisfaction of the employees
has increased and also Procter&Gamble has gained higher ranks in the last 5 years in Fortune’s most
7

9. KCB IDs: 14478, 14486, 14507, 14508
admired companies list. The differences between company’s previous position and its current
position can help us to understand the benefits of this new organisational structure. According to
these differences it can be said that Procter&Gamble’s “Organisation 2005” had been successful.
Total word count for Question-1 : 1062
Total word count for Question-2 : 903
Total word count for Question-3 : 1336
Total word count for Question-4 : 1076
(Total word count excluding Cover Page and References: 4377)
8

10. KCB IDs: 14478, 14486, 14507, 14508
REFERENCES
Blanchard K., Carlos J.P., and Randolph A., 2001. The 3 Keys to Empowerment: Berret - Koehler
Publishers
Business Featured News, 2010. Google Ten Percent Salary Raise [online], Available at:
<URL: http://www.staho.com/google%E2%80%99s-10-percent-salary-raise/206725/>
[Accessed: 25 February 2011]
Cole G.A., 2004. Management: Theory and Practice 6th ed.: South Western Cengage Learning
Degen R.J., 2009. Designing Matrix Organisations that Work: Lessons from the P&G Case: UNISOL
Business School – Glob Advantage
Fortune, 2010. 100 Best Companies to Work for [online]. Available at:
<URL: http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/bestcompanies/2010/full_list/>
[Accessed: 01 March 2011]
Girard B., 2009. The Google Way: William Pollock
Google, 2010. Financial Tables [online]. Available at:
<URL: http://investor.google.com/financial/tables.html>
[Accessed: 01 March 2011]
Google, 2009. Our Philosophy - Ten things we know to be true [online], Available at:
<URL: http://www.google.co.uk/intl/en/corporate/tenthings.html>
[Accessed: 01 March 2011]
Heller R., 1999. Managing People (Essential Managers): Dorling Kindersley
Herzberg F., Mausner B. and Snyderman B.B., 1993. The Motivation to Work: Transaction Publishers
Independent, 2011. Some adult supervision will ensure, Page keeps Google’s Fortune Safe [online],
Available at:
<URL:http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/comment/stephen-foley-some-adult-
supervision-will-ensure-page-keeps-googles-fortune-safe-2191301.html#>
[Accessed:25 February 2011]
Jarvis J., 2009. What Would Google Do? : Harper Collins Publishers
Lowe J., 2009. Google Speaks: John Wiley & Sons Inc
Martin J., 2005. Organisational Behaviour and Management 3rd ed.: Thomson Learning
Mullins L.J., 2005. Management and Organisational Behaviour: Prentice Hall / Financial Times
Owen J., 2009. How to Manage: The Art of Making Things Happen 2nd ed.: Pearson
Procter & Gamble, 2004. P & G: A Company History: Procter & Gamble
Thompson N., 2006. Power and Empowerment: Russel House Pub.
9

11. KCB IDs: 14478, 14486, 14507, 14508
Time, 2006. In search of the real Google [online]. Available at:
<URL: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1158961-1,00.html#ixzz1E83MSggm>
[Accessed: 01 March 2011]
Vise D.A., 2008. The Google Story 2nd ed.: Pan Books
Official Web Sites
GOOGLE [online]. Available at:
<URL: http://www.google.co.uk/intl/en/corporate/>
[Accessed: 01 March 2011]
INTERBRAND [online]. Available at:
<URL: http://www.interbrand.com/en/best-global-brands/best-global-brands-2008/best-global-
brands-2010.aspx>
[Accessed: 01 March 2011]
PROCTER & GAMBLE [online]. Available at:
<URL: http://www.pg.com/en_US/index.shtml>
[Accessed: 01 March 2011]
10