We had an enjoyable first lesson. Mr Karplus said that there would be a lot of discussion going on and there is no right or wrong to an answer, which was relieving to hear. Also, CDE course is an eye-opener to me. We talked about 'Why the hype over the "Google Way" to management and innovation?', and Mr. Karplus introduced us to a lot of new information and exposed us to a lot of interesting facts about company management. In class, Mr Karplus showed us a video regarding the way Google managed their company. I never heard about Google's way of management, and I was shocked. Google is simply the best place you can ever work at, as Mr Karplus had said. I never heard that Google's company was managed in such a free and easy way, and employees could have that much time and liberty to pursue their own passion!
I gained a lot from the video. One of which is the manner Google's company ran. In Google company, employees could have 20% of their free time dedicated to their own research and projects where they had a burning passion in with the other 80% of their time used to finish up their work. Free food and many facilities are provided, such as volleyball courts and massages. Why did Google do this? The reason is simple. Google encourages innovation, and through this method, employees tend to work and think more creatively in a relaxed mood. Furthermore, they would be able to work in a less stressful environment. Many might say that many employees might be easily distracted by these many high-class facilities. However, time is not wasted at all. During meals, employees from different departments are allowed to share their work and discuss, and this might be able to spark off new ideas, or even collaborate to create something new. Furthermore, a peer review policy is set up for personal projects to be reviewed by their peers.
Fantastic it may seem. But I actually doubt how practical and efficient Google's method is. Employees who did not have the responsibility and gratitude might easily take advantage of the situation and exploit the facilities provided. They might simply take the facilities for granted and fool around, Google, would then collapse. Let's put that aside first. Another issue is that the 20% rule might just be a fancy show, since the rate of new production is not really rocketing high. It is at most on par with other top companies. Employees would not have the brains of Steve Jobs. Not everybody could create something new. Does that mean that the 20% of the time is wasted and it could be better utilized? All the new initiatives also suggest a dilution of the focus on the main money source for Google which is what got them so far, as such, if no second ups are made, it might hurt them financially in the long run.
Mr Karplus then led us to compare Google's management with how Apple governed, or rather, controlled their company. It was the total opposite of Google. They restrict their employees, does not allow them to discuss, and only let them be responsible for the making of a new product, thus not allowing them to know the whole construction process, in prevention of the information leaking out. This had got them successful thus far, with them having a great head start ahead of other companies. However, I did not like the way Apple managed their company. To me, it is like working in a place full of conspiracy.
I think that "Google Way” very much matches the more carefree and liberal mindset of westerners, thus their way is more suited to be applied in America. People in U.S. would prefer to have freedom of choice and take pride in working at Google. In America, people believe this way, thus, they would be self-motivated and naturally want to excel in the things, resulting in the success of Google. This would not work in China, as the management method largely depends on trust and reliance between employees and employers. It is a give-and-take situation. I reckon that the Apple approach to management and innovation is more acceptable in China as there had been a significant number of records of corruption and dishonest employees in China who are not exactly trustworthy. Because “The Google Way” of management depends ultimately on trust in workers to reciprocate for what Google has been providing for them, so they would work hard and innovate in return, it is not exactly feasible in China as the Chinese might just take advantage of the excellent facilities which are not cheap. Thus, the expense may be greater than the profit, and the company would suffer. The workers, having no self-discipline, would need an overall in-charge to exert control over them, and set strict rules and regulations, which are provided in the Apple way of management.
On the following lesson, our class also learnt about the Chinese way of organizing companies. Unlike more decentralized Western companies, which are currently dominating the international sphere, Chinese organizations are generally run by a powerful CEO who gives orders to a hierarchy of workers, who typically follow them to the letter without raising questions. Chinese have little trust in impartial Western systems of performance measurement or executive development, and disapprove of lower-level employees proposing ideas to their superiors. As creativity is the core principal that ensures one to survive in the international sphere, China’s companies are unable to survive since their method is of suppressing the innovative ideas of lower-level employees, and not encouraging ideas to flow around would simply deprive the company of more creative ideas. I think that Chinese companies, which only depend on the high-level executives to generate ideas and income, would fail at the international sphere since two heads are still, better than one.
In the next lesson, I learnt about Confucianism, with a vibrant discussion among the class. I was able to better learn from the discussion as I read up on all the articles. For example, I had a better understanding of Confucianism. Confucianism advocates the avoidance of conflict, a vertical social hierarchy that values seniority and patriarchy, reliance on sage leadership that locates its safeguards against the abuse of power not in political institutions but in the moral commitment of leaders. It also speaks for the overarching notion of "ren" (humanity, “compassion” or “loving others”) that assumes human nature to be essentially benevolent. Confucianism also keeps political protest, and encourages Chinese, under Chinese leadership's simplistic mantra about China's unwavering love of "Confucian" stability, to protect the harmonious state, which would help stave off economic stagnation and social upheaval.
I think that the reason the Chinese government now suddenly embraces the Confucian philosophy is not to be attributed to the moral significance of Confucianism. Rather, it is because they want the Chinese to follow Confucianism so brainlessly such that the Chinese would follow the proposed social hierarchy, and respect the government fully. I feel that this is similar to brainwashing, and Confucianism is only being twisted into a political tool which helps the government achieve his aim, which is to strengthen the Chinese government's authority. It is through the name of Confucianism that the Chinese government seeks their self-interest. I think it is similar to how explosives, which are originally meant to improve the lives of human race by clearing large plots of forest, are being altered into bombs which only threatens the world.
All in all, I think that the CDE lessons have been very interesting so far. I enjoy learning the different pros and cons of the different management styles of companies, and it has stimulated a lot of thoughts. For example, I pondered on which management way is better, Apple or Google, and I concluded that it ultimately depends on where the company is at. Lessons are going at a reasonable pace, not too hurried such that we could catch up with what is being said in class. Through class discussions, I also was able to see an issue from different point of views, which altogether, helps me to perceive the world from different perspectives.
