Secretlab is a Singaporean furniture company that primarily designed and manufactured gaming chairs, and has since expanded into ergonomic chairs and desks suitable for everyday work. Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, the company has seen a massive increase in demand for chairs and desks, partly due to the increase in time spent playing video games worldwide (Clement, 2021) and in Singapore (Hirschmann, 2021), as well as work-from-home being the default (MRSD, MOM, 2021). The company has ramped up hiring efforts to match this demand and has scaled rapidly; doubling its headcount in 2 years. Over the years, Secretlab has garnered a range of partnerships with other companies inside and outside of the gaming scene such as Riot Games, HBO and Warner Bros. While Secretlab services in over 14 countries, the company operates its corporate headquarters and research and development centre locally, with over 90% of its employees are based in Singapore.
Secretlab was named one of LinkedIn’s Top Startups 2021 and a certified Great Place To Work® Singapore. The company prides itself on creating an inspiring work environment where employees can work alongside peers who take themselves and their work seriously, and are committed to helping them achieve their personal goals. Secretlab also takes its welfare seriously; the pantry is always fully stocked should employees need a snack break, admin staff engage employees in tea-time quizzes with bonus prizes to be won, and after every major launch or holiday, a snack pack with a personalised note from each employee’s direct manager is sent to their doorstep.
Besides the usual standard leadership positions, the company has a fairly flat hierarchy. Employees are encouraged to improve their skills, find innovative ways to solve problems and speak out for their ideas in the wider team. The founder, Ian Ang, has a simplistic approach to rewarding his employees - work hard, show results and get rewarded. This manifests itself in a quarterly appraisal system that often results in a salary increment. In general, individuals are motivated to strive for excellence, and the company directly rewards employees with increments based on their performance.
Along with vetting a potential employee’s skill set, Secretlab ensures that potential employees fit into its fast-paced culture by looking for specific personalities in the interview process. Nearly 80% of the interview process focuses on the type of culture a prospective employee worked well in, their approach to problem-solving, and how they were planning to improve their skill set. The company culture is in a lot of ways a good fit for employees who are hungry to learn. However, as with many performance-driven companies, some inevitably fall through the cracks.
A cursory look at the employee reviews on Glassdoor would paint a pretty accurate picture of what it is like to work at Secretlab. The most commonly highlighted pros are the “insanely well-stocked pantry”, “great employee welfare” as well as “motivated individuals”. The cons have mentions of burnouts due to the highly competitive environment and a breakdown in communication in certain departments, leading to feelings of alienation and scapegoating.
As a relatively new employee of under a year, my experience aligns well with reviews across the entire spectrum as I have had the unique opportunity to work in both a highly effective team and an ineffective team.
On the Integrated Model of Group Development (IMGD), I would place the highly effective team overall between Stages 3 and 4. The team comprises around twenty people, and most of them have been in the same team for close to three years. From what I have observed, while each individual has a clear role which they are expected to fulfil, team members step in readily to help out other team members who are struggling. Leaders lead by trust, usually cultivated over a long period with consistent stepping in for their team when needed. Clear communication and shows of gratitude are standard across all levels, and team members frequently stay late after work to play online games together.
The ineffective team, however, would fall under Stage 2. While the team maintains a high level of productivity with each team member being highly independent, there is a distinct lack of trust and over-competitiveness between team members. Independence skews negatively into over-independence, where work is often done in silos and miscommunication happens frequently. Half the team joined during the COVID-19 pandemic and thus have not had much face-to-face interaction, and communication is done mainly via text channels due to the work-from-home situation.
I have observed that the team leads also employ a good-cop, bad-cop strategy. The main team lead maintains a stoic front, driving the team forward with harsh criticism to meet goals, whereas the sub-team lead is approachable and builds team rapport. Jack Zenger, the CEO of Zenger/Folkman, names these leaders as “Drivers” and “Enhancers” (Zenger and Folkman, 2013). Drivers are defined as leaders who establish high standards of excellence, and keep employees focused on prioritising and hitting far-reaching goals. On the other hand, Enhancers stay in touch with the issues on the ground and give helpful feedback in a way that maintains trust. Which approach then is better for employees?
A 2020 research found that abusive supervision negatively impacted job satisfaction and affected the risk of employee turnover (Hussain et al., 2020). Many researchers have also found a strong correlation between abusive supervision and decreased work-life balance, greater stress intensity, and emotional tiredness (Martinko et al., 2013). Conversely, a 2006 study on competitive altruism found that the most altruistic members of the group gained the highest status in their control group (Hardy and Van Vugt, 2006).
While studies yield conflicting results on whether the “Driver” or “Enhancer” type leadership is better for a team depending on the type of metrics the study is looking at (i.e, performance vs mental well-being), Zenger/Folkman suggests that a delicate mix of both approaches engages employees the most (Zenger and Folkman, 2013). The common consensus seems to be that leaders should employ the “Enhancer” role as much as possible, and when the “Driver” role is necessary, to deal with the situation in a way that does not break the employee’s trust (Mehta, 2021).
I sent an anonymous survey to the members of the ineffective team to gather feedback with the following questions:
● What are the challenges or conflicts you have faced at work so far?
● How did you go about solving these conflicts?
● How is your experience working with “Driver” team lead and “Enhancer” team lead?
● How do you view your relationship with your other team members?
● How do you think our team dynamics could be improved?
The feedback was compiled and is listed from most to least mentioned as follows:
● Team is overall high-performing and hits goals
● “Driver” team lead gives harsh feedback
● Misunderstandings through Slack text channels due to being unable to interpret tone accurately
● Team members often feel singled out in the text channels when they make a mistake, leading to defensiveness
● “Enhancer” team lead is easy to approach and mediates team conflicts well
● Some team members seem to complete only tasks assigned to them and do not offer help
● Lack of trust due to internal gossiping