Management Styles Essay
There are some businesses in the world that stand out more then others due to their success and ability to stay relevant in their sectors. Three such companies, Apple, Google and Seems are like the “all-star” team of corporations that command respect at the mention of their names. The reasons for their success are Illustrated In the business articles “Managing Without Managers,” “How Apple Got Everything Right by doing Everything Wrong,” and “Where does Google go from here? These articles give s some historical information about the companies, and some insights into their management styles. Apple has become very successful with an autocratic system under Steve Jobs, Google is very good to its employees as it uses a participative management style, and Seems has totally redesigned its old techniques of autocracy to allow for a completely democratic, participatory, circular management system. These companies are very successful, so obviously, all of their styles have some merit; however, It Is clearly Ideal to have a certain amount of participation In a management program, as Seems illustrates.
These companies are similar and different in some ways. While these businesses are market leaders, the products and services they offer are very different. Google offers a
Need essay sample on "Management Styles"? We will write a custom essay sample specifically for you for only $ 13.90/page
Similarly, the success of Apple and Google ere the result of very dedicated and intelligent entrepreneurs. For example, the article “How Apple Got Everything Right by Doing Everything Wrong” states that Steve lobs is a typical entrepreneur who ignores the rules that apply for everyone else, often parking in the handicap spot (1). As Norm Although states, entrepreneurs such as Jobs and Summer are often very similar. He describes them as “people with vision, drive, and creativity who are willing to take the risk of starting and managing a new business or to… Irately change the scope and direction of an existing firm (175). While Jobs started Apple from nothing, Summer took over his company from his father and changed It from a top down management style to a new, circular management style. Google, while very similar to Apple In the fact that it Is a successful technology company, has a unique management style which is different from the other two. It can be assumed that all three companies have business plans that address past steadily increase their business.
This has allowed them to thrive even through the world’s economic woes of the recent recession. It goes without saying that all three f these companies are looking to expand their business to stay ahead of their competition, so they continue to improve things like management style. To illustrate this, it is common knowledge that Google is figuring out new strategies to keep themselves relevant after being the top the world market strategies like acquiring Youth and constantly thinking of new innovations with research and development initiatives.
Similarly, Apple is developing innovative products that are kept secret to shock existing and potential new customers alike. Seems has done so well in enervating quality products in an unconventional managerial environment that American companies are trying to understand Come’s organizational skills. The biggest issue, elating to the success or failure of any business is management. In fact, the need for high standards of leadership has led to businesses spending millions of dollars every year to shape current employees into future assets. As Although et al. Tate, companies today usually rely on managers to guide the daily process using human, technological, financial, and other resources to create a competitive advantage (206). The traditional method of management involved a triangle shaped hierarchy. At the top of this hierarchy, were the authorities, or bosses. Below them, were managers, and underneath, supervisors and entry-level staff at the bottom (210). However, many companies have started to adjust this system in varying degrees, because as Summer mentioned, it is simply too far from the top of the pyramid to the bottom.
In other words, the minor staffs do not communicate enough with the executives (Summer 1). With the move from autocratic, or top down management towards more participatory management style, companies can empower their staff. With increased autonomy, the staffs have more control over decisions, and their motivation increases. Apple is an excellent example of an autocratic leadership, in which there is a boss who leads his/her employees with clear rules, plans, and orders. Steve Jobs was known as being a mentor and inventor despite his unorthodox styles, stringent quality control, and temper.
He was known as a tough boss who cared deeply about the company and wanted his product made perfectly (Kenney 2). Many employees feared that they would lose their Jobs, so they irked very hard in order to impress their boss (Kenney 2). Steve Jobs inspired his employees to create quality products and important innovations. Furthermore, nothing was developed in the company without the approval of Mr.. Jobs. This fits the textbooks description of autocracy well as it stats that “Manager makes most decisions in an authoritative manner” (212).
Participatory management was not absent from Apple, however. As the article “How Apple Got it right by Doing Everything Wrong” states, there are no reserved parking spots at that company, everyone is in the same situation (Kenney 1). This means that the top of the hierarchy was not given all of the perks that would be classic in a truly autocratic environment. According to an article titled “Where does Google go Next? ” the leaders their remain confident even with many high profile employees leaving the company.
Google employs the “laissez-fairer” leadership style of avoiding specific planning and control. The employees have a lot of freedom and are able to have many comforts and personal projects. During work they can access massages, video games, laundry, and expensive cuisine. Life at Google can be very relaxing and fun, but sometimes it is radar to get employees to do the work that must be done (Lamina’s 2). The author wonders how, if the company is so good to its employees, they keep losing them. It is likely a problem of motivation (Lashing’s 1).
As Summer mentioned, the three most important management tenets are democracy, profit sharing, and information (1). If any of these are absent or ignored at Google, there will always be problems with the hierarchy. For example, at Google there are positive staff initiatives like the ability to participate in management decisions and decide on working hours, but there still is a ere distinct concept of management. In other words, even though the staffs are treated well, they are not completely motivated to do what is best for the company.
It is unclear exactly what might be affecting this motivation, but it could be the presence of large working groups that hinder information developing or the absence of employee loyalty due to not enough profit sharing or too high of a difference between top salaries and lower staffs salaries. It could also be due to feelings that the organization is not democratic enough despite its best efforts to be participatory. On the other hand, the Seems leader or “counselor,” Richard Summer, is involved with all parts of the company inside out, yet remains very humble in a democratic atmosphere.
He took over two decades ago from his family, and changed the management structure. The current system at Seems is another example of a different type of leadership – Participative. In fact, this company is borderline laissez fairer/participatory. In his article, Summer actually mentions his participatory management style, whereby everyone has input, but managers do exist. Seems clearly does have a system that almost fits the textbook definition of laissez-fairer. Manager turns over virtually all authority and control to the group… Embers are present with a task and given freedom to accomplish it” (212), however, it will be classified here as participatory. In a participative work environment, everyone in the company shares duties and activities. The managers, if they exist at all, will always include everyone in decision-making. According to Summer, At Seems, employees can outvote management, can decide on salary and bonuses, interview all new staff, and can vote on corporate decisions (3-4). Employees are directly involved in the operations and decisions of the company.
Seems has more employee/managerial transparency than any of the other companies discussed here. As a result of major employee loyalty due to transparency, profit sharing, and democracy, they have more loyal employees as compared to the other two companies. Seems doesn’t rely on advertising like Apple and Google, because everyone knows the prices and products, and speaks highly of their employer. Issues like security, company expenses for travel, and accounting are not discussed at Seems. Instead, everyone is trusted to act like responsible employees – and, according to Summer, it works.
In fact, that company has seen dramatic increases in profit since he started using democratic management (Summer 1). Despite differences in management, Apple, Google and Seems can all be very proud of their accomplishments in their respective industries. There will always be styles that they have implemented in order to be successful. The primary differences between Google, Apple, and Seems, are in their treatment of employees. Google is known as one of the best employers in America because of their system of participative management.
While managers and hierarchies do exist, the staff is treated well and given special perks in order to keep motivation high. Jobs, a typical entrepreneur, used a very authoritative approach in running his business, which did not always keep everyone happy, but did keep the profits high. He was motivational, and most people liked him. Finally, Seems can provide a good example of participatory management. Staffs at Seems are given full rights to work with management in a circular system which focuses on democracy, information, and profit sharing instead of the classical top down approach.