Personally, I would prefer to work in Lenovo compared to Google. Google's management style may seem like it encourages creativity, but the peer review system makes it hard for Google to decide how to fund projects. Therefore, even if you have a good idea, you may not necessarily be supported by Google. If you have a truly good idea which you are passionate about, you might as well set up a company and follow through yourself. In any case, I do not find myself to be neither creative nor passionate. I would probably be happier in Lenovo's structured system where all I have to do is listen to my superior. While it may seem more tedious or boring, I do not find myself passionate about any particular job or subject yet. In other words, as of now, I feel that a job is simply a job. I would only work for practical reasons, namely money. I do not have the intrinsic motivation to work harder than I need to, and therefore feel that whether I work at Google or Lenovo, I would probably still treat it as "work" and not enjoy one over the other. I do not even have the extrinsic motivation of money as I am not really ambitious and would be content without needing an extravagantly large pay check. Lenovo's system allows one to stay in their comfort zone as they never really have to try and be innovative, or make important decisions unless they climb to a top position in the company.
Another reason would be the culture. I find that the culture in Singapore is more similar to China than to America. With a predominantly Chinese population, and having spent a lot of time in schools with a Chinese majority, I find that Chinese values such as respect are also emphasised here in Singapore. While the education system is taking a shift towards a more creative approach to learning, it is still notorious for rote-learning and developing conformity. Though this has been useful in the past to produce reliable managers, it has now been pointed out that Singapore now needs more creative and flexible leaders to remain competitive. It has even been said that Singaporean schools kill curiosity. While I have been lucky enough to have went through programmes that claim to be better at promoting critical thinking, innovation and curiosity in students, I still feel that there may be a culture shock if I work at Google. I would prefer a more similar environment which does not take me out of my comfort zone, even if others perceive it to be a "worse" environment. One has to question, why should the management style of Lenovo be seen as less creative than that of Google anyway?
The Lenovo management style is similar to Apple's management style, with the top executive making the important decisions-in this case, it used to be Steve Job's. Steve Job's prided himself on Apple's management style, which had a clear distinction between employees and their superiors. Yet Apple has come up with many innovative and wildly successful products. Despite the similarity in management style, Chinese companies such as Lenovo have a huge difference in creativity as compared to Apple. Therefore, it makes sense to conclude that creativity is not caused by the management style. The Google management style can only encourage creativity, but it ultimately depends on the innate ability of it's employees to think out of the box. This is partly why it has such a stringent selection process. Apple was successful not because of it's management style, but because of Steve Jobs, who allegedly planned out 4 years of new products for Apple before his death. In other words, if someone who is not creative joined Google, he would still remain as someone who is not creative, which is why I would see no point in joining Google.
(832 words)
Dear Samuel,
ReplyDeleteyou have made a point, innovation must start from young =)
Quoted from your journal, "Why should the management style of Lenovo be seen as less creative than that of Google anyway?" you felt that Lenovo has a management style that generates creativity as well as Google. However, as taken from a news article from Bloomberg Business News in 2009, Lenovo ranked forty-sixed globally in terms of innovation while Google ranked second.
Actually, we might not notice it, but Google is very creative. It has many products that are never heard of in the world, such as Google Gears, an Innovation that lets one use Web applications work offline. The reason why Lenovo is less creative is because it does not give room to employees to think independently, out of the box. True, Apple adopted a similar approach to Lenovo and surpassed Google. However, we cannot compare Lenovo with Apple because the leader of Lenovo is nowhere as revolutionary and forward thinking as Apple.
Regards,
Nicholas 3S125
Resources: http://images.businessweek.com/ss/09/04/0409_most_innovative_cos/6.htm
Perhaps I should clarify, the point I was trying to make was that the creativity of Google is based more on the innate ability of its employees to innovate rather than being due to the management style. I was not trying to say that Lenovo was as creative as Google in general.
ReplyDeleteDear Samuel,
ReplyDeleteYou have made an analogy to Apple, referring it as having the same management style as Lenovo. However, you claim that:
"Apple was successful not because of it's management style, but because of Steve Jobs, who allegedly planned out 4 years of new products for Apple before his death."
I disagree with your point. I feel that Apple is successful not only because of Steve Jobs or it's management style, but both play an important role. There are talents in Apple other than Steve Jobs. Dominant figures include Tim Cook and Jonathan Ive who is the lead designer behind just about every great apple product designed in the past decade or so. This shows that Apple is not dependent on Steve Jobs alone, but it is a company that is interdependent on each other due to the job delegation.
Linking back to Lenovo, I feel that the reason why Apple is more successful than Lenovo despite having the same management system is that Apple modified the system. While Apple still has a distinct hierarchy, it encourages creativity within one's job scope. For example, the designer is allowed to explore new ways to design products, the programmer is allowed to explore new mediums like the app store, etc. However, this is not the case in Lenovo, where employees expect instructions to be given to them. Thus, I feel that Apple is doing better than Lenovo because it encourages innovation within the hierarchy model.
Regards,
Jing Ling
Sources: http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/future-apple-without-steve-jobs-140839064.html
@Jing Ling
DeleteAs I have stated before, my main point is that the talent a company attracts is more significant than simply the management style when trying to be innovative. As such, even if Apple is not successful because of Steve Jobs but because of other talents, it does not affect my main point as Apple is only an example.
I find your point that Apple can encourage creativity and have a distinct hierarchy interesting. It seems to make sense, but carries the implication that companies like Lenovo can compete in the global market with innovative products without needing as much restructuring as I thought. If Apple and Google can both encourage creativity but have different management styles, which one would you then choose? Many people seem to write that they prefer Google as it allows them to express their creativity, but if Apple can do that same thing, would people prefer to work in a clear hierarchy system?
I think that Singapore is indeed very alike China. I agree with you that Singapore’s education trains out “reliable managers” at the expense of promoting traits like creativity. The Singaporean education system is still largely based on drilling and rote-learning, producing a batch of excellent test takers and task doers, but not necessarily the best thinkers and innovators. However, I think that the futuristic curriculum in our school does give us the space for creativity. For example, our project’s day competition is one platform whereby we can showcase our creativity in the various categories. I personally took part in the inventions category in both Secondary 1 and Secondary 2, and found it very interesting and meaningful. External competitions like the Greenwave Competition, the Innovation Programme and the Tan Kah Kee Young Inventors’ Award that work as the stimulus for students to innovate. The Innovation Programme (IVP) that I took part in in Secondary 2 was a very fruitful programme. The IVP consists of talks and lectures about innovation, as well as sharing sessions with successful innovators like people from 3M. I find these types of programme are very helpful in developing more creative students.
ReplyDeleteAlthough agree with your point that the management styles are largely based on cultural differences, but I disagree with your point that Google's management style is not as good at promoting innovation as compared to companies like Lenovo. Google's management style puts more people into the creation of new ideas, and this increase in quantity can make up for its perhaps lack of quality. Most companies around the world are managed like Lenovo and Apple, but how many companies attain their level of success? Not many, and in the process whereby ideas are created by selective people in the company, many other people are left out in the process of innovation, decreasing the efficiency of the innovation process. Furthermore, my experience in doing the inventions category for projects day tells me that inspiration is rather stumbled upon rather than actually artificially created. I think that Google gives a very good environment for programmers to create new ideas, and with its lack of structure and freedom during work perhaps allows more space for innovation and creativity by putting the workers minds away from work.