On chaos and creativity in business – the WTO-column When I attended in March the Google Dance Party in Nanjing I was treated more than one time on illustrations of differences in management style. On display in the hall of the hotel was a movie of happy newly recruited Google-employees. They all had been forced to drop their business suits, were wearing Google t-shirts and learned how to play with each other.
An US company like Google tried to get most out of the creativity of their staff, transforming them into a happy family like we know them from the US soap operas.
Liu Chuanzhi, the founding father of Lenovo – some of us might still remember the company as Legend – has a very different way of creating his happy corporate family, I read in a recent book about his company:
“In the 1990s, [Liu] brought what was essentially a paramilitary management style of highly centralized command into a high-tech industry. On the other side of the Pacific, entrepreneurs like Bill Gates were practicing a kind of free-rein management style in the information industries. In China, Liu Chuanzhi insisted on having the company become a Spartan battle structure with each person and each department taking its proper place as one component of the whole.”
Could things be more different? But Lenovo, now the third largest producer of PC’s in the world, must have done something right here. What management styles try to address is what their leaders perceive as relatively weak points in the organization that need urgently to be strengthened. While Western managers have to learn their people ‘out of the box’ thinking and mobilize their hidden creativity, Liu Chuanzhi obviously thought his fellow citizens were already out of the box enough and did not need any encouragement to use their creativity.
Liu’s management style did emerge, just like Google’s, under very specific conditions. Liu did get his fair share of trouble as Mao Zedong unleashed repeatedly the power of the people on very destructive paths, the last time during the Cultural Revolution (1966-1976). The first years of Legend were equally marred by lack of organization, faction building and conspiracies, creating a company with very Chinese characteristics. So, he wanted a centralized, even paramilitary style to control his managers. When you are familiar with the larger Chinese enterprises, you might understand why in that setting this choice is understandable.
The question is now, what is going to happen when Google uses its management style in China, or when Chinese companies use their style in Europe or the US. The clashes of Huawei, yet another paramilitary style enterprise, with managers in Europe and the US are already well documented. Lenovo, after purchasing the PC-division of IBM, might have bought perhaps not a freewheeling management style like Google, but also not a Chinese military style.
In the end both management style might have to adopt, depending on the situation they are in. Assuming that you can bring in either style into a fully different setting without changes might be a mistake
Fons Tuinstra
PS: I’m reading Ling Zhijun. The
Lenovo Affair
. The growth of China’s computer giant and its takeover of IBM-PC. A review will follow later.