4 ms·

At a big corporation, like Intel, we cannot really talk about just one culture. I would say that your experience can vary quite a lot based on the team you’re i

At a big corporation, like Intel, we cannot really talk about just one culture. I would say that your experience can vary quite a lot based on the team you’re in and to a certain degree the org you’re in. Various people assign the ‘toxic’ label to various things. What may be ‘meh’ for one person could be ‘toxic’ to another. Also: Mandatory HR is not your friend reminder. HR is there and it’s trained to protect the corporation.

gwbas1c 8y ago
> At a big corporation, like Intel, we cannot really talk about just one culture. I would say that your experience can vary quite a lot based on the team you’re in and to a certain degree the org you’re in. Slightly. Ultimately, the high-level culture is set by the execs. > Various people assign the ‘toxic’ label to various things. What may be ‘meh’ for one person could be ‘toxic’ to another. No, definitions are important. The word "toxic culture" has a very clear meaning; and the article does not use it correctly. Specifically, toxic culture means an environment that leads to high stress and poor mental health. That's not what the article discussed, and it's completely appropriate to criticize. A "toxic culture" is a very serious accusation, so incorrectly using the term isn't something that falls under the "I say toe-may-toe, you say toe-mah-toe" attitude.
- mirceal 8y ago
  Re: definitions are important Yes and no. Some of the biggest conflicts I’ve seen started because of misunderstanding ‘basic words’. So definitions matter in the sense that they help clarify intent. But they also can make things harder if you insisting on a certain definition comes across as condescending.
  - 1123581321 8y ago
    Possibly true but irrelevant here, since the OP does not come across as condescending, and their distinction between Intel’s culture and a toxic culture is making it easier to understand Intel.
- mirceal 8y ago
  And yes, the high level execs do have to shape the culture, but it’s far from the formal “we want things to happen like X” and it’s usually a live/evolving process that happens over years, and it’s usually tailored at org and team level. Sometimes the high level directives are great but the culture sucks, sometimes (less offen) the culture is great in spite of high-level.
- Barrin92 8y ago
  >Slightly. Ultimately, the high-level culture is set by the execs. Depends on the size and the structure under which the institution operates. If there's autonomy within an institution execs might attempt to set a culture, but they can obviously not control it and the result will be a mix of organic bottom-up developments that diverge from section to section, and top-down guidelines. At a company the size of Intel, with over 100k employees, it is almost impossible to have an iron grip on the entire workforce.
Aloha 8y ago
HR can be your friend, when the interest of the company, and your interest happen to align, which in my experience is more often than not. But its important to recognize, that HR is only to your benefit, when interests align, the OP is right, that HR is not there to protect you, but to protect the company, sometimes protecting you however, is protecting the company as well.
- duxup 8y ago
  >HR can be your friend, when the interest of the company, and your interest happen to align, which in my experience is more often than not. I think that very much depends on how HR decides to view things. Someone complains about another coworker's behavior. "Oh man we better protect the company by addressing that person's behavior." "Oh man we better protect the company by addressing the person who complained." Just about every HR situation can go in a lot of directions, it just depends on what HR decides their best choice is. The problem as an employee is that you DON'T KNOW what HR thinks or will do, pretty much ever. HR as an organization has all your personal information, and HR groups expect / requires you share that with them .... but generally you have no relationship with them and no reason to trust them. It's a weird situation.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- slivym 8y ago
  I really don't think that's the definition of a friend.
threatofrain 8y ago
> Various people assign the ‘toxic’ label to various things. What may be ‘meh’ for one person could be ‘toxic’ to another. So in your view, does toxic culture have shared meaning or not?
- mirceal 8y ago
  For me ‘toxic culture’ means high stress, agressive unwarranted behaviour and dehumanizing the people to justify things.
  - mixmastamyk 8y ago
    "Far more serious than just a lack of professional competence was the utmost contempt for human dignity…" https://projectfailures.wordpress.com/2008/06/24/project-from-hell/amp/ https://projectfailures.wordpress.com/2008/06/24/project-fro...
    - mirceal 8y ago
      :O speechless
mc32 8y ago
With re: >Also: Mandatory HR is not your friend reminder. HR is there and it’s trained to protect the corporation That I will not dispute. However, I would also say that _everyone_ is there for the progress of the company. We’re all hired to do what’s good for the company, not the boss, manager, subordinate, colleague, etc. Now, yes, HR has a special direct role to execute that goal.
- dreamcompiler 8y ago
  Not always. I once worked for a company that had an ombudsperson who reported only to the CEO. The ombuds' job was to investigate employees' complaints without fear of being fired him/herself. In that company, the system worked well.

gwbas1c 8y ago

> At a big corporation, like Intel, we cannot really talk about just one culture. I would say that your experience can vary quite a lot based on the team you’re in and to a certain degree the org you’re in. Slightly. Ultimately, the high-level culture is set by the execs. > Various people assign the ‘toxic’ label to various things. What may be ‘meh’ for one person could be ‘toxic’ to another. No, definitions are important. The word "toxic culture" has a very clear meaning; and the article does not use it correctly. Specifically, toxic culture means an environment that leads to high stress and poor mental health. That's not what the article discussed, and it's completely appropriate to criticize. A "toxic culture" is a very serious accusation, so incorrectly using the term isn't something that falls under the "I say toe-may-toe, you say toe-mah-toe" attitude.

mirceal 8y ago
Re: definitions are important Yes and no. Some of the biggest conflicts I’ve seen started because of misunderstanding ‘basic words’. So definitions matter in the sense that they help clarify intent. But they also can make things harder if you insisting on a certain definition comes across as condescending.
- 1123581321 8y ago
  Possibly true but irrelevant here, since the OP does not come across as condescending, and their distinction between Intel’s culture and a toxic culture is making it easier to understand Intel.
mirceal 8y ago
And yes, the high level execs do have to shape the culture, but it’s far from the formal “we want things to happen like X” and it’s usually a live/evolving process that happens over years, and it’s usually tailored at org and team level. Sometimes the high level directives are great but the culture sucks, sometimes (less offen) the culture is great in spite of high-level.
Barrin92 8y ago
>Slightly. Ultimately, the high-level culture is set by the execs. Depends on the size and the structure under which the institution operates. If there's autonomy within an institution execs might attempt to set a culture, but they can obviously not control it and the result will be a mix of organic bottom-up developments that diverge from section to section, and top-down guidelines. At a company the size of Intel, with over 100k employees, it is almost impossible to have an iron grip on the entire workforce.

Aloha 8y ago

HR can be your friend, when the interest of the company, and your interest happen to align, which in my experience is more often than not. But its important to recognize, that HR is only to your benefit, when interests align, the OP is right, that HR is not there to protect you, but to protect the company, sometimes protecting you however, is protecting the company as well.

duxup 8y ago
>HR can be your friend, when the interest of the company, and your interest happen to align, which in my experience is more often than not. I think that very much depends on how HR decides to view things. Someone complains about another coworker's behavior. "Oh man we better protect the company by addressing that person's behavior." "Oh man we better protect the company by addressing the person who complained." Just about every HR situation can go in a lot of directions, it just depends on what HR decides their best choice is. The problem as an employee is that you DON'T KNOW what HR thinks or will do, pretty much ever. HR as an organization has all your personal information, and HR groups expect / requires you share that with them .... but generally you have no relationship with them and no reason to trust them. It's a weird situation.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
slivym 8y ago
I really don't think that's the definition of a friend.

threatofrain 8y ago

> Various people assign the ‘toxic’ label to various things. What may be ‘meh’ for one person could be ‘toxic’ to another. So in your view, does toxic culture have shared meaning or not?

mirceal 8y ago
For me ‘toxic culture’ means high stress, agressive unwarranted behaviour and dehumanizing the people to justify things.
- mixmastamyk 8y ago
  "Far more serious than just a lack of professional competence was the utmost contempt for human dignity…" https://projectfailures.wordpress.com/2008/06/24/project-from-hell/amp/ https://projectfailures.wordpress.com/2008/06/24/project-fro...
  - mirceal 8y ago
    :O speechless

mc32 8y ago

With re: >Also: Mandatory HR is not your friend reminder. HR is there and it’s trained to protect the corporation That I will not dispute. However, I would also say that _everyone_ is there for the progress of the company. We’re all hired to do what’s good for the company, not the boss, manager, subordinate, colleague, etc. Now, yes, HR has a special direct role to execute that goal.

dreamcompiler 8y ago
Not always. I once worked for a company that had an ombudsperson who reported only to the CEO. The ombuds' job was to investigate employees' complaints without fear of being fired him/herself. In that company, the system worked well.