Introduction
People are the key constituent of any organisation. They help organisations in achieving their long term goals. However, managing people is a difficult task. People have their own aspirations and desires, have different priorities and motivations, possess diverse skills and handle situations in their own unique way. As the number of employees in an organisation increases, the complexity of managing people increases multi-fold. It is because the needs of people are varied and different techniques need to be used for ensuring motivation and performance in employees. Also, variability in prevailing circumstances and nature of manpower employed play an important role in determining the management style. Thus, there are various factors that determine the way the leaders handle their subordinates and make decisions that are best for the achievement of organisational objectives.
The objective of this paper is to compare and contrast management styles adopted by different companies, and assess its effectiveness in the given context. Management styles of Apple, Google and Semco are taken as examples to understand the concept. The paper is divided into four sections. The first section identifies the similarities and differences in Apple, Google and Semco. The second section discusses how each company tries to be entrepreneurial given the challenging market conditions. The third section describes the management styles adopted by each of the three companies. The fourth section concludes the paper.
Apple, Google and Semco: A Comparison
Apple and Google are multi-national giants with their headquarters in the United States, whereas Semco has its base in Brazil and it is a dominant player in Brazil alone. The three companies have a strong brand presence in their respective areas of operations.
The companies sell different products and operate in different industries. Apple is involved in designing, creating and selling consumer electronics, computers and operating system. Google functions in the segment of internet search engines, operating systems and latest advertising technology. Semco deals with manufacturing of sophisticated products like digital scanners, dishwashers, marine pumps, truck filters, and mixing equipment (Semler). Thus, while Apple and Google operate in the service industry, Semco is a manufacturing based firm. Also, while individuals are the key customers for Apple and Google, Semco targets corporate customers. In spite of the difference in their industries, the three companies excel in their key product markets. Apple is the fastest growing mobile phone maker in the world (Comeau). Google is the fastest growing technology company, globally (Decuir 1). Semco is one of the fastest growing companies in the world (Semler). The three companies are working towards a larger vision of bringing about change for the betterment of the world.
The companies differ in their level of innovation. Google launches products frequently with new and advanced value propositions. Apple launches very few new products in a year that quickly appeal the customers. Semco focuses on innovations that improve operational efficiency of the company. The three companies adopt different management styles and assign decision making responsibilities at separate levels.
Thus, the key similarities between Apple, Google and Semco are strong brand presence, excellence in area of operations, visible efforts to bring latest technology to customers, focus on customer delight, fast growth trajectory and larger vision of societal progress. The major dissimilarities between the three companies are with respect to their product suit, industry type, market segment, target customers, level of innovation and management style.
Managing Entrepreneurship in Challenging Market Conditions
Apple, Google and Semco operate in a highly competitive industry segment. The three companies face difficult market conditions. However, they transform these challenges into opportunities by specialising and providing customers with a unique proposition. The challenges faced and the way the companies manage their entrepreneurship in such difficult situations is discussed in this section.
Apple
The computer and consumer electronics segment, which Apple operates in, is a high customer involvement product segment. The industry is categorised by a few big players who adopt various differentiation strategies to gain the market share. Companies use price competitiveness, simple user interface, and assembling flexibility as differentiation strategies to survive in the market.
Apple operates in a niche segment offering innovative and latest technology products at a premium price. The products of Apple like iPhone, iPad and iPod have been a revolution in the global consumer electronic and computer market segment. Apparently, the company faces close to zro competition in its niche segment. Given the premium nature of its products, the company operates on value rather than volume.
E-advertising is the main revenue source for Google. Given the high potential of growth and profitability, the industry is highly competitive. Google competes with other search engines from companies that have established credibility in the market.
Google has been successful in becoming the category leader in most of its product offerings. Its search engine ‘Google.com’ is the most used search engine in the world and far ahead the next best option available. This reflects the companies immensely increasing popularity and fast growing revenues. It is important to understand that Google competes against the other search engines by providing customers with a better browsing experience. The high satisfaction in internet browsing experience of Google’s customers can be attributed to speed, simplicity of use and high quality of search results. The company has been able to achieve this through a hiring the best talents and continuously striving to achieve excellence in processes and innovation strategies.
Semco
Semco manufactures machinery and equipment mostly for commercial use. It operates in a challenging environment due to presence of global players and availability of cheaper substitutes. Semco experiences competition from multi-national companies (MNCs) like AMF, Worthington Industries, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, and Carrier (Semler). The presence of MNCs increase competitiveness as such companies bring in global experience and exposure to latest developments in the segment.
Semco succeeds by offering high quality sophisticated products at a competitive price and speedy delivery. The company is able to gain cost advantages and manage speed through its efficient operative techniques. The company is even better known for its radical shift in management style and adoption of democratic form of management.
Management Styles of Apple, Google and Semco
Management styles can be broadly understood in reference to market competitiveness, organisational culture, its nature of business, its employees’ skill levels and the personality of the leaders. This section presents a comparison and contrast of the management styles of Apple, Google and Semco with respect to the defined aspects.
Management Style of Apple
Kahney aptly comments about the working style in Apple by stating, “Apple creates must-have products the old-fashioned way: by locking the doors and sweating and bleeding until something emerges perfectly formed”. This old fashioned way of working has helped Apple against its competitors. However, the credit to Apple’s working style mainly goes to its former leader, Steve Jobs. Jobs is well known for his micro management. A former manager at Apple remarks that Jobs scrutinizes everything down to the pixel level (Kahney).
Jobs management style can be terms as unconventional, but more towards the autocratic style of management. It was adopted a top-down management style of working where approvals were required at every stage, from defining standards and designing to product launch. It is important to note that such micromanagement worked since Apple has a limited number of product line. Though its employees constitutes of professions, Jobs believed in a stick approach to motivate employees (Kahney). There was an unending fear, among employees, of getting fired for non-performance. However, Jobs radiated charisma that kept his employees dedicated. With his zeal, commitment, charisma and autocracy, Steve Jobs motivated employees to outperform and bring out their best.
An assessment of Jobs’ leadership style establishes that employee friendly and carrot approach do not work well in a highly competitive, innovation oriented industry. To excel through innovation, it is important to stretch employees to their maximum potential. Also, such focus of top management can be achieved only when dealing with lesser number of product lines.
Management Style of Google
The Google style of working is very different from Apple’s management style. Google motivates employees the carrot way. It provides its employees with the packages, perks, and unprecedented autonomy to choose projects and team mates (Lashinsky). It also encourages innovation by providing one day a week to work on technology ideas that they best believe in. A former employee of Google remarked that he was surprised by the number of things that were happening in the company simultaneously (Lashinsky). The majority of the company’s work force comprises of professionals. The company does not believe in adopting the precepts of modern management that is about resource allocation, deciding which projects to pursue, where to spend money, when to take a pass (Lashinsky). This is because the company feels the resources are not all that scarce.
An assessment of Google’s style of working is indicative of laissez faire style management style. The employees are given full autonomy and are left on their own to perform their tasks. The management does not interfere in their subordinates working style. However, it limits boss-subordinate interaction and personal guidance. Google’s style of management is line with its long term objectives. Google has a large number of product suites and aims at saturating the market with new advanced technology against competition products. Thus, Google is able to stand ahead of competition by more number of quality product launches, even at the cost of cannibalisation.
Management Style of Semco
Semler is proud to lead a manufacturing company like Semco that treats employees as responsible adults, where factory workers have flexibility to set their own working hours, all have access to the company books and majority participate in corporate decisions. Not only this, monthly salaries are given regardless of nature of work and higher management has a flexibility to structure their own remuneration packages. Semler’s management style is innovative and empowers its employees. By encouraging cross functional work culture, the company has been able to redefine its process and improve its process efficiencies. This has given a competitive edge to the company in spite of the challenging market conditions.
An assessment of Semler’s management style indicates a participative and democratic style of working. This style is characterised by the presence of a strong leader who encourages its employees to participate in the overall functioning of the organisation. The decision making power rests with the leader, but employees have a significant say in it. This style of management spreads optimism among employees. It also supports creativity. The participative style of management is essential in organisations that are more process driven and deal with workers. Motivating employees in such organisations enhances productivity and helps improve efficiency, thereby providing a competitive edge to the company.
Conclusion
Managing people is a difficult task. Complexity of people management increases, with increase in number of employees. The aim of the paper was to compare and contrast management styles adopted by Apple, Google and Semco, and their relevance. The three companies are similar in their strong brand presence, vision of excellence and fast growth trajectory. The companies are dissimilar in their product offering, industry type, level of innovation and management style. The companies work in challenging marketing conditions and transform these challenges into opportunities by specialising and providing customers with a unique proposition.
The three companies adopt different management styles. Apple adopts an autocratic approach which works well for its innovation oriented limited product lines. Google adopts a lasses faire management style to encourage new product development to stand ahead of competition by more number of quality product launches. Semco adopts a participative style of management which is essential in organisations that are more process driven and deal with workers. It enables them to enhance productivity and achieve process efficiency.
Works Cited
Comeau, Michael. “Apple Is the Fastest-Growing Mobile-Phone Maker in the World, and Four Other Things You Need to Know”. Minyanville.com, 16 May 2012. Web. 24 May 2012.
Decuir, Matthew. “Google Company Analysis”. Mattdecuir.com, 2007. Web 24 May 2012
Lashinsky, Adam. “Where Does Google Go Next?” Money.cmm.com, 12 May 2008. Web 23 May 2012
Kahney, Leander. “How Apple Got Everything Right By Doing Everything Wrong”. Wired.com, 18 Mar. 2008. Web 23 May 2012
Semler, Ricardo. “Managing Without Managers”. Hrb.org, Sep. 1989. Web. 23 May 2012.
