On Friday, it was my first lesson on SES. During SES period, I learnt about Google, Apple and Lenovo's way to management and innovation.
Google's way of management is employee oriented with a lot of freedom given to the employees. I feel that this is the most effective way for the company to succeed, and I am definitely keen to work in Google. For me, when I am given freedom to explore into whatever topics, I can create better results. During robotics session, the instructor taught us the basic structure to build a robot. He then gave us the freedom to built a robot of our own. He will later let the two moving robots clash head to head into each other and see which robot breaks first. My robot was very powerful and strong, so every time it challenges another robot to a fight, it always win. I was doing well in robotics until another instructor took over. He wanted us to follow a standard way to built a robot, and there was no more competition. It killed my interest and soon, I quit robotics. This is an example of how freedom and competition can help to improve one's product, and also why I prefer to work in Google.
Furthermore, I am someone who will be motivated by external factors. For example, when my parents promise me an iphone if I score well, I would be motivated to do well. If there is no motivation, I would just laze around instead of studying. Not surprisingly, my room is filled with different electronic gadgets ranging from the iphone to a laptop. Therefore, Google will be my preferred working place due to the various facilities.
On the other hand, I feel that Lenovo's system of management is ineffective. If everyone has to follow the leader's idea, and when one cannot express the ideas he or she have, the company will remain at a stand still. This is because whatever products created is what the leader thinks will flourish in the market, but this may not be the case. After all , his imagination and creativity is limited. One example is my secondary one projects day competition. The way we managed the project was similar to Lenovo's where the rest of the group members do what the leader ask them to. The topic was decided by the group leader, and although I felt that it will not progress well, I did not voice out. The project was a Chinese one, and at least half the project group members have trouble scoring well in Higher Chinese Language. we failed and I learnt my lesson.
Google is an American company, while lenovo is is a Chinese one. I think their difference in management styles are due to their different societies. In America, freedom is given to the citizens, and they are allowed to voice out their opinions, choose their education. In google, freedom is given to the workers too, since Google is an American company. However in China, people tend to listen to their leader and not voice out against them, which is why China is a communist country. The country is ruled by a dominant party rule, where the party decides on the policies they want to impose in China. Therefore, Lenovo, based in China, follows a similar way of management. Google constanly improves itself through different opinions provided by different people while Lenovo remains at a standstill as the system of management stifles creativity. Western countries tend to come out with all the different inventions and not eastern countries, no?
Dear WeiHao,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you on the point that Google is more employee-oriented while Lenovo works with a dominant leader. I also agree with you on the point that Google's way can help us to be more successful at things we do rather than Lenovo's way where creativity is stifled and one may not do as well.
However, I feel that although Lenovo's way does not promote passion and creativity for work and hence will be a bad way to do things. I disagree with you on this point. Let me explain how Lenovo's way still does have its good points. Lenovo has a dominant leader who gives directions and hence there will be no arguments or disputes. The leader gives direction for the company and not let the employees go around experimenting aimlessly. This will increase the efficiency of the company. Look at Apple for example which runs their company in a similar way as that of Lenovo. Steve Jobs is the dominant leader and he is the only one that gives orders. Your reflective journal tells me that with a dominant leader and a fixed way to do things, it will cause us not to be successful or not do very well. However, this is not the case in Apple. Apple as you can see now creates your Iphone, Ipad, Macbook ect. It sure does have creativity to come up with such products and in actual fact, Apple is doing very well now. Its economy has increased drastically since the launch of the Iphone in 2009.
I also do not agree with you on the point that the difference in management styles are due to their different societies. Look at Apple and Google both based in America. In America, although freedom is given to the citizens, and they are allowed to voice out their opinions, why is this the case in Google but not that in Apple?
I would also like to ask what if employees in Google take advantage of their freedom. Wouldn't that be a disadvantage for Google?
You also mentioned that freedom and competition can help improve one's products. I agree with the part on freedom However, what if this healthy competition leads to unhealthy competition and leads to disunity and jealousy amongst people? Is competition still good then?
Overall, I feel that your reflective journal has given me a new perspective through the personal examples you have used. However, I hope that you can clarify my doubts.
Thank You.
John Loh(10)
3S1
Dear Wei Hao,
ReplyDeleteI have the same mindset that when I am given freedom to explore into topics which I am interested in, I put more effort into what I am learning, and there is more motivation and drive in me to do better for the subject. During one of the Assembly sessions, Dr Hon shared with us his experience of visiting one of the schools in Australia. He mentioned that students were given the autonomy to choose their own subjects in school. In addition, I understand that NUS High practices a similar system, where students can choose their own modules to take, in which there are core modules which are compulsory. Modules have points, and students have to meet a certain number of points each year to be promoted to the next grade. In my opinion, the advantage of this is that students can pursue what they are interested in, and students are not pressured to studying topics that might seem dull to them.
However, the major disadvantage of allowing students to choose what they want to study (ie. full autonomy) is the possibility that students do not pursue interests that raise the overall well-being and competitiveness of oneself and the society. For example, students might choose to "further his interests" in computer games, and decides not to partake in other activities. This will result in society crumbling due to the lack of people to run the society, and the shortage of trained professionals to lead and develop the various fields that are essential to the society as a whole.
Thus, a fixed set of choices must be given to the students if schools were to adopt this system. In fact, Hwa Chong has already implemented this through sabbatical week, and the choosing of programmes at the end of Secondary 2. However, I feel that more freedom can be given to students. In fact, this can be compared to the parenting of a child. The amount of freedom a parent should give his child has always been a controversial topic in society (eg. Tiger Mum, Amy Chua), which is similar to giving autonomy to students in schools, and to employees in companies.
As for extrinsic factors being the motivation to study, it is similar to the Google way, as you have mentioned. However, Google hopes to use these extrinsic factors to give rise to intrinsic factors, which is essential for the growth and success of the company. In terms of studying, if one studies only because of the rewards that come with it (eg. electronic devices), then what would be the purpose and meaning in studying?
Learning is a life-long process, but why is learning important? The purpose of learning is not to get good grades, which unfortunately our culture and education system have overly emphasised, but rather to find meaning in life, understand thyself and the world around us, ignite our passion, pursue our dreams, and live life to the fullest. Aren't these more important and meaningful than extrinsic motivators such as money and power which are superficial?
Going back to Google, I feel that intrinsic motivators are more important in the running a company, while it is acceptable and understandable when it uses extrinsic motivators to develop the internal motivations of an employee.
Thank You,
Ivan Yeo (08)
Hi Wei Hao,
ReplyDeleteI find that your blog post is very interesting because of your personal experiences. I also share more or less the same thoughts as you. I too, feel that Google has a better working style. Google provides space for innovation to take place, and the wide range of facilities makes people comfortable, and willing to work and come up with ideas.
However, I would also like to bring up that, Lenovo has its own benefits as well. For example, Lenovo makes sure that everybody listens to the superior, such that there are no questions asked. This makes the working style in Lenovo very efficient and there will definitely be positive results, provided the leader is capable enough. On the other hand, I believe Google has some disadvantages. I feel that there are sure to be some people who will take advantage of the facilities and unlimited amount of time, and earn money not doing anything. This will be undesired because there will be no results at the end of the day if such cases persist.
However, all in all, I find Google a better style too, as a whole. This is because it is essentially creativity which produces the most desired results. Thus, I would definitely prefer Google’s style to Lenovo’s, just like you.
One more thing is that I would like to comment on your example of Project’s competition. I was in the same group as you, and we did not voice out our opinions on the project our group leader was embarking on, even though we knew that that was not the best idea. From this lesson, I feel that we should not follow Lenovo’s style of management too much, as we should always voice out our opinions, and ask whenever necessary. I also like the part where you said, Google and Lenovo are different, probably because of their different working styles. I feel that in order for China to beat USA as an economic superpower is develop US’ style of management in the various industries. In this way, there will be many home-grown talents, not only blind followers, to lead the country to emerging as the new superpower. In conclusion, I prefer Google’s way of working due to the fact that creativity is the most important, and space is needed for it to be developed.
Done by:
Ng Wei Sing Darren (19) 3S1