Introduction The ethical behavior of a leader can

Introduction

Leaders have
an important role within an organization related to its success, productivity
and the performance of the employees. The “fundamental task of a leader is to
build and maintain a high performing team” (Furnham, 2005, p.566). Only
few leaders nowadays can truly make employees follow and believe their ideas,
Larry Page is one of them. Larry Page is the current CEO of Google, a company
that literally changed the way the world learned. Personally, I would say, that
Google is a great phenomenon of our century and it will take a lot of time for
others to beat their success. This paper will examine the effectiveness of the
Google’s CEO, the leadership style and the CEO organizational value. The
ethical behavior of a leader can affect the effectiveness of other workers in
the organization as the leader in any organization are often seen as an object
of emulation by the employee of the company. Ethical behavior of Google CEO
shall be review in this paper as well as the significant value that made the
leader a successful CEO.

 

Biogr?phy
L?rry P?g? is th? curr?nt chi?f ?x?cutiv? offic?r of Googl?. H? w?s born on M?rch
26th, 1973 in Michig?n to Mr. C?rl ?nd Glori? P?g?. His f?th?r is consid?r?d ?s
on? of th? pion??rs in comput?r sci?nc? ?s h? obt?in?d up his PhD wh?n th? fi?ld
of comput?r sci?nc? w?s b?ing introduc?d in m?ny institutions. L?rry st?rt?d
his ?duc?tion ?t th? Ok?mos Mont?ssori School in 1975 through to 1979, ?ft?r
which h? join?d ??st L?nsing high school. H? ?cquir?d his first b?ch?lor’s d?gr??
in comput?r ?ngin??ring from Michig?n Univ?rsity wh?r? h? p?ss?d with honors. ?ft?rw?rds,
h? ?nroll?d ?t St?nford Univ?rsity wh?r? h? gr?du?t?d with ? M?st?r’s of sci?nc?
d?gr?? in comput?r sci?nc?. Whil? ?t th? Univ?rsity, Mr. P?g? ?xhibit?d his
profici?ncy in comput?r sci?nc? wh?n h? inv?nt?d ? pow?rful s??rch ?lgorithm
known ?s P?g?R?nk. Unlik? old?r s??rch ?lgorithms,
P?g?R?nk prov?d to b? mor? sup?rior b?c?us?
it w?s b?s?d on ? t?chnology th?t ?x?min?d b?ck links th?t link?d on? p?g? to ?noth?r.

P?g? tog?th?r with his fri?nd S?rg?y Brin, ?st?blish?d Googl? in 1998. ?ft?r ?
short tim?, Googl? ros? quickly to b?com? th? most popul?r s??rch ?ngin? in th?
world. ?ccording to Luth?ns (2008), Googl? is ?n iconic comp?ny ?nd r?nks ?s on?
of th? b?st ?mploy?rs in th? world. Curr?ntly, it h?s offic?s ?ll ov?r th?
world ?nd ?mploys ?bout 73,546 p?opl? ?ccording to figur?s r?l??s?d in 2017

(Googl?, 2017).

 

L??d?rship
styl? ?nd Philosophy

? cruci?l p?rt of ? comp?ny wh?th?r l?rg?
or sm?ll is to d?fin? th?ir cor? v?lu?, th? v?lu?s th?t ?r? most import?nt to
th? dir?ction of th? org?niz?tion ?nd th? d?cision within it must b? cl??rly sp?lt
out for th? comp?ny to ?chi?v? its purpos?. For ?n org?niz?tion to succ??d, th?
v?lu? of th? C?O must b? in r?l?tion to th? org?niz?tion v?lu? in oth?r to ?void
conflict of int?r?st b?tw??n th? C?O ?nd th? org?niz?tion. Looking in to p?rson?l
v?lu? of succ?ssful C?O, w? find out m?ny of th?m h?s th? s?m? or r?l?t?d v?lu?
simil?r with th?t of th? org?niz?tion ?nd this is s??n ?s on? of th?ir succ?ss
s?cr?t?. L?rry P?g? p?rson?l v?lu? w?s in clos? proximity with th?t of Googl? ?nd
this is ?ctu?lly r?fl?ct?d th? tr?m?ndous succ?ss th?t w?s r?cord?d by him ?s ?
C?O of on? of th? b?st org?niz?tion in th? world to work. Googl? co-found?rs L?rry
P?g? ?xpr?ss?d Googl?’s cor? v?lu?s ??rly on in th? phr?s? “Don’t B? ?vil.” ?nd
d?spit? criticism of wh?t som? b?li?v? to b? intrusiv? ?dv?rtising in Gm?il ?nd
oth?r s?rvic?s, Googl? h?s l?rg?ly k?pt its word. L?rry p?g? h?s ? v?lu? of
working with th? most int?llig?nc? ?nd sm?rt?st p?opl? in th? world ?nd which
is on? of th? m?jor v?lu? of Googl? ?s org?niz?tion to work with sm?rt ?nd int?llig?nc?
gr?du?t?s ?nd gr?nting th?m opportunity to ?xpr?ss th?ir id??s for d?v?lopm?nt.

?ll progr?mm?rs in Googl?, for ?x?mpl?, ?r? p?rmitt?d to us? up to 20% of th?ir
work tim? on proj?cts th?y b?li?v? th? comp?ny would b?n?fit from. Inst??d of m?r?ly
?ncour?ging innov?tion, Googl? took th? r?r? st?p of m?king it ? m?nd?t?d p?rt
of ?v?ry workd?y, this is ?vid?nc? in v?rious innov?tion b??n discov?r by Googl?
??ch d?y

?lthough Googl? st?rt?d ?s ? sm?ll comp?ny
th?t w?s h??dqu?rt?r?d in ? g?r?g?, it h?s ris?n to ? glob?l gi?nt ?nd ?mploys
p?opl? from ?ll ov?r th? world. Mor?ov?r, th? comp?ny h?s div?rsifi?d its
products from ? s??rch ?ngin? to m?ny oth?r products th?t touch ?lmost ?v?ry ?sp?ct
of our d?ily liv?s. For ?x?mpl?, millions of p?opl? brows? th? int?rn?t using
Googl? chrom?, sm?rtphon?s th?t run on ?ndroid g?t dir?ctions from Googl? m?ps,
w?tch ?nd uplo?d vid?os from YouTub?, m?int?in ?m?il ?ccounts ?t Gm?il, conn?ct
soci?lly on Googl?+ ?nd ?dv?rtis? th?ir goods ?nd s?rvic?s on Googl? ?dS?ns?.

Th?s? ?nd oth?r ?x?mpl?s ?r? ? cl??r r?fl?ction of how Googl? ?ff?cts th? d?ily
liv?s of m?ny p?opl? ?round th? glob?. To ?nsur? th?t th? comp?ny continu?s to
grow ?nd m?int?in its positions in th? m?rk?t, L?rry P?g? h?s ?dopt?d s?v?r?l m?n?g?m?nt
styl?s ?nd ?ppro?ch?s. Th? first m?n?g?m?nt
styl? is ?dopting ? tr?nsform?tion?l ?ppro?ch in ?v?rything th?t h? do?s. This
styl? ?nsur?s th?t ?mploy??s ?t th? comp?ny ?r? ?lw?ys motiv?t?d, h?nc? incr??sing
th?ir productivity. Th? s?cond l??d?rship styl? us?d by P?g? is b?ing t?sk ori?nt?d
?nd mor? dir?ctiv?. Cons?qu?ntly, h? d?m?nds his m?n?g?m?nt st?ff to ?lw?ys k??p
him up-to-d?t? on curr?nt proj?cts in ord?r to ?ccomplish th? comp?ny’s motto
of quick ?nd concis? (Googl?, 2017). His l??d?rship styl? is ?im?d ?t ?limin?ting
long-dr?wn out m??tings in which d?cisions t?k? ? lot of tim? to m?k?. P?rs?v?r?nc?
is th? oth?r l??d?rship styl? of Googl? chi?f ?x?cutiv? offic?r L?rry P?g?. D?spit?
th? ch?ll?ng?s or obst?cl?s h? f?c?s, h? ?lw?ys striv?s to ?dv?nc? t?chnology
in ?ll s?ctors of lif? (Luth?ns, 2008).

 C?O’s p?rson?l ?nd
org?niz?tion?l v?lu?s

Googl? could not h?v? ?chi?v?d its r?c?nt
growth without th? ?xc?ption?l l??d?rship of L?rry P?g?. To l??d th? comp?ny to
such un?xp?ct?d growth, P?g? h?d to portr?y mor? tr?its oth?r th?n int?llig?nc?.

Much of th? succ?ss ?chi?v?d by th? comp?ny c?n b? ?ttribut?d to his supportiv?
?ttitud? th?t ?ntr?nch?s ? “don’t b? ?vil” ?ppro?ch. This is r?fl?ct?d by his
un?nding ?fforts to ?nsur? th?t ?v?ry ?mploy?? in th? comp?ny s??s it ?s ? f?mily
(R?gin?ld & G?rdn?r, 2008). Googl?’s ?mploy??s ?r? tr??t?d to ? wid? sp?ctrum
of b?n?fits which includ? fr?? m??ls, tr?v?l insur?nc?, pr?s?nts to n?wcom?rs,
fr?? l?g?l ?dvic?, on sit? h??lthc?r?, d?y offs to n?w p?r?nts, f?mily ?llow?nc?s,
physic?l fitn?ss f?ciliti?s, ?nd ? form of p?nsion wh?n ? f?mily los?s ? lov?d
on? (Googl?, 2017). ?noth?r p?rson?l tr?it of L?rry P?g? is th?t h? is fl?xibl?.

This is r?fl?ct?d by his d?cision to r?l??s? softw?r? products th?t ?r? dir?ctly
?im?d ?t ch?ll?nging th? comp?titors of th? comp?ny. For ?x?mpl?, th? comp?ny r?l??s?d
Googl? Docs, which is ? r?l?tiv?ly in?xp?nsiv? offic? ?pplic?tion to us? comp?r?d to Microsoft offic?. Googl? ?lso produc?d Googl?
chrom?, which w?s ?im?d ?t ch?ll?nging th? monopoly ?njoy?d by oth?r brows?rs
lik? Mozill? ?nd Microsoft’s Int?rn?t ?xplor?r (Br?gg, 2011). Oth?r th?n th? ?for?m?ntion?d
p?rson?l v?lu?s, P?g? ?lso poss?ss?s th? ?bility to d?t?ct th? n??ds ?nd d?m?nds
of th? ?v?r-ch?nging mod?rn ?nvironm?nt. This h?s ?n?bl?d him to tr?nsform th?
comp?ny from ? m?r? s??rch ?ngin? to ? glob?l softw?r?, t?l?communic?tion, ?nd
multim?di? comp?ny. For ?x?mpl?, th? comp?ny provid?s ?m?il s?rvic?s, produc?s
softw?r? for sm?rtphon?s, owns th? l?rg?st vid?o uplo?d s?rvic? in th? world, ?nd
owns ? t?l?phon? gi?nt (Motorol?) ?mong oth?r products ?nd s?rvic?s. Mor?ov?r,
it h?s ?lso v?ntur?d into th? world of soci?l n?tworking through th? r?l??s? of
its soci?l n?tworking sit? known ?s Googl?+ pl?tform. This is ? cl??r indic?tion
of his no f??r ?ttitud? b?c?us? h? d?cid?d to ch?ll?ng? F?c?book d?spit? its
domin?nc? ?nd s?tur?tion of soci?l n?tworking world. B?ing bro?d mind?d ?s h? is, L?rry P?g? h?s shown his ?ntr?pr?n?uri?l ?ttitud?
by inv?sting in r?n?w?bl? ?n?rgy comp?ni?s lik? th? T?sl? Motor Comp?ny, ?nd
two wind f?rms in North D?kot?. Wh?t is mor?, P?g? h?s shown his ?ntr?pr?n?uri?l
spirit by t?king th? comp?ny through ? succ?ssful initi?l public off?ring f?w y??rs
?ft?r it w?s found?d. Th? sh?r?s of th? comp?ny d?but?d ?t 85 doll?rs in 2004 ?nd
continu?d to ris? to 1200 doll?rs now?d?ys.

Th? v?lu?s ?mbr?c?d by ? comp?ny must b?
shown in ?ll its op?r?tions ?nd by its ?mploy??s b?ginning from th? low?st to
th? high?st. ?s th? s?nior most ?mploy??s in ? comp?ny, chi?f ?x?cutiv? offic?rs
dir?ct m?ny ?ctiviti?s in th?ir comp?ni?s. ?s ? r?sult, th? v?lu?s h?ld by ? C?O
h?v? ? dir?ct imp?ct on th? ?thic?l b?h?vior within th? org?niz?tion. For ?x?mpl?,
L?rry P?g? ?mbr?c?s cr??tivity ?nd innov?tion h? h?s b??n on th? for?front in
promoting th?s? v?lu?s in Googl? Inc. Wh?n ? C?O ?mbr?c?s ?nd ?dh?r?s to c?rt?in
v?lu?s, oth?r ?mploy??s ?r? lik?ly to follow suit.

Str?ngths ?nd W??kn?ss?s

It is import?nt for ? succ?ssful C?O
to ?cknowl?dg? its str?ngths ?nd w??kn?ss?s in oth?r to b?tt?r d??l with his
limit?tion b?c?us? “Th? w?y l??d?rs r?spond to ch?ll?ng?s, th?ir ?ttitud?s ?nd th?ir b?h?viors – combin? to hold
gr??t sw?y ov?r th? psychologic?l clim?t? th?t ?xists within th? org?niz?tion”
(Linl?y, Woolst?n & Bisw?s-Di?n?r, 2009). Wh?n th? C?O ?cknowl?dg? th?ir
str?ngth ?nd w??kn?ss?s th?y h?v? ? b?tt?r und?rst?nding of th?ir d?cisions ?nd
?ction. L?rry P?g? ?s ? c?s? study, C?O of Googl? h?s c?rt?in str?ngth th?t
could b? ?ttribut?d tow?rds his position ?s th? C?O of th? comp?ny, som? of
this str?ngth will b? discuss in th? n?xt p?r?gr?ph of this p?p?r.

Th? first m?in w??kn?ss of L?rry P?g? is
his in?bility to ?ff?ctiv?ly communic?t? his pl?ns ?nd d?cisions to ?xt?rn?l ?ntiti?s
?nd inv?stors. This h?s m?d? m?ny of th?m f??l lik? th?y ?r? not ? p?rt of th?
org?niz?tion b?c?us? th?y ?r? only cont?ct?d ?ft?r d?cisions h?v? b??n m?d?. Th?
s?cond w??kn?ss of P?g? is ?n obs?ssion with tr?nsform?tion?l motiv?tion. M?ny
p?opl? h?v? consid?r?d this ?s ? w??kn?ss b?c?us? of th? mor?l issu?s ?ssoci?t?d
with it. Th? third w??kn?ss of L?rry P?g? is th?t h? is ov?r poss?ss?d with
innov?tion ?nd f?ils to b?l?nc? it with fin?nci?l turnov?r.

Th? m?in qu?lity th?t h?s contribut?d most
to th? succ?ss of L?rry P?g? is his insist?nc?
on innov?tion ?nd cr??tivity. Googl? op?r?t?s in ?n
int?ns?ly comp?titiv? m?rk?t, ?nd it must truly innov?tiv? to r?spond to th? ?v?r-ch?nging
n??ds of custom?rs. By b?ing innov?tiv?, L?rry P?g? h?s h?lp?d Googl? to d?v?lop
uniqu? products th?t m?ny custom?rs c?n id?ntify with (R?gin?ld & G?rdn?r,
2008). For ?x?mpl?, Googl? ov?rtook Mozill? Fir?fox in b?ing th? most popul?r
brows?r in th? world wh?n it r?l??s?d Googl? chrom?. Mor?ov?r, Googl?’s ?ndroid
op?r?ting syst?m is th? most popul?r op?r?ting syst?ms ?mong sm?rtphon? us?rs
in th? world.

 

Conclusion

D?spit? his w??kn?ss?s L?rry P?g? w?s ?nd still
is ?n ?ff?ctiv? l??d?r. Th?
w?y h? l??ds, guid?s, communic?t?s ?nd motiv?t?s his ?mploy??s m?k?s him st?nd
out from oth?r big C?Os. H? do?s not just ?ct ?s ? l??d?r, but ?lso ? fri?nd ?nd
f?mily m?mb?r to th? ?mploy??s. P?g? m?k?s Googl?rs f??l ?t hom?. H? do?s not n??d
to provid? lo?ds of fin?nci?l b?n?fits to k??p his ?mploy??s motiv?t?d, inst??d,
h? focus?s on m?king th?m f??l h?ppy, s?lf-s?tisfi?d, s?lf-?ccomplish?d ?nd ?mpow?r?d.

L?rry do?s not forc? on th? ?mploy??s ?nd giv? th?m mor? fr??dom th?n ?ny oth?r
comp?ny. ?v?n so, Googl? is still mor? productiv? th?n most comp?ni?s. P?g? m?k?s
us? of his ?mploy??s’ t?l?nts by giving th?m 20% of fr?? tim? to innov?t? using
th?ir cr??tivity. Th? most import?nt f?ctor th?t k??ps him ?nd his ?mploy??s
conn?ct?d is “trust”. H? b?li?v?s th?t th? ?mploy??s ?r? c?p?bl? by giving th?m
fr??dom, whil? th? ?mploy??s r?p?y him by using th? fr??dom to innov?t? b?s?d
on th?ir int?r?sts ?nd t?l?nts. In conclusion, L?rry P?g? is ?n ?ff?ctiv? l??d?r
b?c?us? h? builds good r?l?tions b?tw??n him ?nd th? ?mploy??s.