Google and Lenovo have distinct working styles that are two opposite axis when compared together, and I believe that the society they have these working styles are based is one of the main contributors to this difference. Google reflects one of the more liberal and creative society in the world, the United States of America. Thus, it is achievable for Google to adopt a working style that utilises space for innovation and creativity. This can only be done if there is already some form of creativity in their workers, such that its potential can be developed by Google. Personally, I feel that the USA comprises people who are less market-oriented and are evidently more open to views, even if it contrasts with their own. They are not constrained by the limits of their own imagination and they are willing to try out new ideas, to experiment, to explore the freedom given to them. And it is undeniable that no matter how much Google craves for creativity, it cannot be forced upon, and space is one of the main encourages one could use to find the spark of creativity. Its work force are able to handle the space given to them, are motivated by the unique facilities and most of all, enjoy this whole idea of free space for endless innovation. Google's style of peer reviewing and providing workers with 20% of their free time for their own innovations is made possible because it is based in USA. Therefore, we can see that it is the society that Google is functioning in that plays a part in determining which style they can adopt and its working style reflects the society that it is based in.
On the other hand, Lenovo is based in China, where its people require guidelines and hierarchy to guide them in the working process. Lenovo then adopts a completely different working style as compared to Google, which is giving instructions to workers as to what they should work on. This way, the higher-ups would determine which scope of job their workers would focus on and it is inextricably linked to the lost of freedom for creativity. But, the people are contented, they have no issues with this working style and this is because the Chinese lack the ability to work efficiently when given more space to work in. Instead, they would work much more efficiently within a limited scope of area they are instructed to work in. With the same amount of space, the Chinese may be lost as to which direction they should head to, so the would adopt a style of going with instructions without questioning, as stated by William J. Holstein in his "China Multinational Quandary". Their historical culture and moral education has brought them up as people possessing such qualities, and Lenovo has to utilise this workforce. With the workforce Lenovo has, it has to fully utilise what its workers are most comfortable with, and this is formulated by the society the workers live in. As such, Lenovo's working style of implementing social hierarchy in companies and not giving as much freedom to work in, reflects the society it is based in, China's society.
I have a very memorable experience in working in a group that functions in similar ways as Google. My Secondary 1 Project's Day project was a invention, a category that encourages the innovation of products that would solve limitations of products right now in the market. For me, it was a category that had little boundaries restricting the scope of my project. The time I spent thinking of ideas for the project was just like the 20% Google offers to its employees, in which I could rack my brains thinking about anything that needs improvement. There was no distinct hierarchy, we recognised one another's ideas and did not dismiss any because he is not the leader. Initially, my group dives headfirst into the beginning of our project, considering and formulating new ideas to be worked on, and we were enjoying the freedom we could work in. However, we then realise that the ideas we were coming up with were mostly based on our impressions of current products in the market, and we had no solid problem we could actually tackle. This was a problem. It never occured to me that having the freedom to do any type of invention could actually turn into a problem, because we had no direction we could follow. Just going along with an idea without thinking it through could mean compromising the quality of our project. But we went into the project with an idea related to water sprinklers and we did quite well.
To me, the experience of working in this working environment was refreshing and impactful, yet it reminded me of something I had misunderstood - that having more freedom to start on ideas does not equate to having the ability to think of ideas to work with. The prerequisite of working with this working style is the passion to continuously think of ideas and the ability to work efficiently in the given freedom.
I also have experience working in Lenovo's work setting. In my Secondary 2 Projects's Day, I started a project on Resource Development with a different group of people. But the difference was this time, we found a mentor that functions in Lenovo's working style. During meetings, she was very optimistic and excited in giving new ideas to improve our project, and what my group members do was to nod and agree on every point. Unlike our project in Secondary 1, initiative to speak up was comparatively less. We functioned according to the leader's ideas and the mentor's initiatives. Although there were times when I wanted to propose an idea, the idea was not considered very important as everyone focused only on following the leader's instructions. However in the end, our project did not do as well as my project last year.
Personally, I honestly preferred working in Google's working environment and enjoy their working style. I agree completely that the vast amount of freedom given for innovations and ideas our own plays a main role in the formulation of great ideas, given that one is able to stay dedicated and able to cope with the working style. I do admit that I face difficulties to a notable extent when in this environment, however, I believe that it actually gives me the chance to experiment different things, to try to hear out new ideas that may seem completely wrong to me initially. I wish to be someone who is receptive to new ideas, not one who is confined to his own realm of thought or one who would just follow instructions and not speak up. Google's working style would shape me to be someone like that. I also enjoy the peer review process because I get to hear out different people's opinions on my idea. Be it right or wrong, they provide a wide range of perceptions of things, and I believe that the best ideas should be able to gain the approval of many people, just like the iPhone. However, I do acknowledge that Lenovo's working style is useful as well, especially when one prefers things to be systematic. It achieves the purpose of completing each task efficiently and this whole process would almost guarantee that things are organised. Yet again, I feel that even when functioning in Google's working style, one can achieve the same. Organisation of things can also be achieved with the freedom of creativity. It is entirely dependent on one as to whether his many ideas are arranged systematically, and I believe that this form of organisation does not stifle creativity. Only when one is constrained by the system of not being able to freely formulate new ideas, then one's creativity is affected. As such, I believe that the Google's working style would be most suitable for me, as I attempt to incorporate Lenovo's organisation into it as well. I have enjoyed and learned much from this SES lesson, and as I review my working styles, I wish to discover the most suitable working style for me and try to improve it as much as I can!
I think that your experiences during Projects Day Competition are very interesting, and a rather clear reflection of your preference of working style.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I find the part about organisation being able to be achieved in freedom a little ambiguous. What do you mean by that? In my opinion, it is because Lenevo's method of organisation is more efficient and uniformly executed; that is there is a need for such a working style in the world. Could you elaborate on your opinion on this?
Furthermore, I have to disagree with your point about Google's way of management being able to flourish mainly because Google is based in America. There are many stories of Americans who left the search engine giant because of inability to be creative. This statement also does little justice to Google offices in other countries, including our own. Google is not predominantly made up of Americans; it's called a multi-national corporation.
All in all, I find your take on preference of working style rather interesting and refreshing, since many of the other classmates', including mine, journals I have seen all seem to approve of Lenovo more than Google.
Nathan Teo (18)
Thanks for the question. For your second point on what I meant by "organisation being able to achieved in freedom", was that I believe that efficiency and organisation of ideas can be achieved even if I choose the Google's working style. It is commonly believed that in Google, there is little constraints with regards to the scope of ideas workers can work on, resulting in more freedom for creativity. Also, there is the peer review system. Both presents a situation where ideas are less-organised as compared to Lenovo, as peer-to-peer review is conducted and people would come up with new ideas which may be easily dismissed as well. My point is, even in this environment, I would like to try to organise my work and ideas well, and not compromise the creativity in the freedom of space.
ReplyDeleteMy apologies on the Google part and how it is able to flourish because it is in America. Thank you for the comment reminding me that it is a multi-national corporation. What I was actually trying to bring out is, the working style that comprises so much freedom and space is derived from America and that even in different countries, this working style is still induced in the company. Yes, Google is not predominantly made up of Americans, but the stringent hiring process provides Google with people who have the ability to work in the space provided and innovate. I do apologise for the misconception there, perhaps due to my phrasing.