5 ms·

I find this thread kind of confusing, it basically seems to say the culture itself doesn't matter. What matters is that it is strongly held. Which means top dow

I find this thread kind of confusing, it basically seems to say the culture itself doesn't matter. What matters is that it is strongly held. Which means top down, ritualized and vigorously defended against any attempts at change.

Aeolun 6y ago
A good company culture is one that the whole company follows. As opposed to a bad company culture, where there is basically no global culture to speak of, and every manager has their own little fiefdoms.
- meheleventyone 6y ago
  That's such a narrow definition it almost feels circular. If there is no global culture throughout a company can you even describe it as having a company culture?
  - Aeolun 6y ago
    Probably depends on who you ask :)
- danjac 6y ago
  Fiefdoms are bad, but is a company monoculture necessarily a good thing? Perhaps different teams (especially if geographically dispersed) can adopt a culture that works for them rather than follow some top-down mandate that they'll follow half-heartedly if at all.
  - Aeolun 6y ago
    > that they'll follow half-heartedly if at all At that point it’s bad company culture right?
    - danjac 6y ago
      Arguably beyond a certain size and other than some basic rules around things like good behaviour and ethics, I'm not sure you can have a one-size-fits-all for a company (or any other) culture.
- Draiken 6y ago
  So if I create a culture of fear and abuse, but everyone on the company follows it, it's suddenly a good culture? That's very reductionist.
beforeolives 6y ago
The message is that consistency matters and that strong leadership can produce good results in the right circumstances. Top-down isn't necessarily a bad thing. And what are the alternatives? No consistency throughout the company would mean that there wouldn't be any company culture to speak of. And if your processes aren't (ultimately) top-down, then what's the company leadership actually for?
- meheleventyone 6y ago
  I think it's basically the thought that a great culture is one that is strongly held. The wheels are liable to come off quite quickly if that's the only criteria. I'm confused because it's quite simplistic and reductive. The obvious alternative is a bottom up organization of culture although most companies are not setup for that to work well. The actual reality is going to be a combination of both. I'm sure everyone's worked in environments where the corporate values are treated as a joke.
- watwut 6y ago
  It seems to me that it will prevent adaptation to changes.
- michaelt 6y ago
  Some values ought to be universal across a company. I'm sure everyone at Volvo could agree that driver safety is a high priority. Other values may well vary between departments - People working on the car's software can do weekly releases at little or no cost with lightweight planning - but the injection-moulded door handle will need a $$$$$ mould and several months for every design change, so they'd certainly better have frozen the design several months before product launch. There might not be much common ground on ideas like starting with an MVP and iterating, moving fast, dealing with changing requirements, two week sprints, and so on.
dh2424 6y ago
Yeah, it certainly doesn't define what great company culture actually is.
- paulcole 6y ago
  I think it does. Great culture is different for everyone. I like a culture built around fast innovation. My friend likes a culture built around slow and steady progress. Neither culture is right or wrong, they are just different. But a great company culture is one (regardless of its core tenets) that’s followed strongly throughout the organization, top to bottom, starting with the CEO.
sokoloff 6y ago
Though I’m an atheist, I think that many different churches do good things for their participants from a community and social perspective, even though they may differ from each other significantly in their specific religious doctrine.
teachingassist 6y ago
The way I understand this is: consistency is important for managing expectations. Change is not a problem but consistent application of expectations is important (in my opinion, this would include expectations around how you manage change). If you have one set of expectations from one manager, and a different set of expectations from another manager, the complexity of your work just squared.
jodoherty 6y ago
The major takeaway for me is that with a strongly held culture, everyone in the company is playing the game by the same rules, making it clear how to succeed, how to fail, and as such, how to conduct business. It's also clear whether or not you would enjoy working there -- there's no finding the right team or department with its own culture if everyone has the same culture there. Of course, he doesn't explore whether or not the benefits of this are worth the disadvantages, and there's plenty of room for argument either way, especially with large organizations.
- marcosdumay 6y ago
  Well, of course, the complement is that a diverse culture is one where most people can find some place they can add value and be recognized, and if they get in a team they don't fit well, they can just move into a different one, instead of a completely new job. Both of those versions are gross oversimplifications.
watwut 6y ago
Yeah, it seems to me the same. I dont see that as massive positive.
TuringNYC 6y ago
>> I find this thread kind of confusing, it basically seems to say the culture itself doesn't matter. What matters is that it is strongly held. Which means top down, ritualized and vigorously defended against any attempts at change. Yes, because you're taking a significant risk joining any company (in the sense that you have limited time and want to go where you can have the most impact for the firm and best outcomes for your goals). You often dont know details about projects, people, etc -- but if you vibe with the culture, you can easily find your place there. If the culture is all over the place, it is hard to know from the outside. And if the culture is a mismatch for you, better to neither waste your time nor that of the firm. Without a strongly projected culture, that is hard to do.
lostlogin 6y ago
> I find this thread kind of confusing Having it split into tweets doesn’t help. I struggle to think of a worse format - perhaps a series of short videos would be worse?

Aeolun 6y ago

A good company culture is one that the whole company follows. As opposed to a bad company culture, where there is basically no global culture to speak of, and every manager has their own little fiefdoms.

meheleventyone 6y ago
That's such a narrow definition it almost feels circular. If there is no global culture throughout a company can you even describe it as having a company culture?
- Aeolun 6y ago
  Probably depends on who you ask :)
danjac 6y ago
Fiefdoms are bad, but is a company monoculture necessarily a good thing? Perhaps different teams (especially if geographically dispersed) can adopt a culture that works for them rather than follow some top-down mandate that they'll follow half-heartedly if at all.
- Aeolun 6y ago
  > that they'll follow half-heartedly if at all At that point it’s bad company culture right?
  - danjac 6y ago
    Arguably beyond a certain size and other than some basic rules around things like good behaviour and ethics, I'm not sure you can have a one-size-fits-all for a company (or any other) culture.
Draiken 6y ago
So if I create a culture of fear and abuse, but everyone on the company follows it, it's suddenly a good culture? That's very reductionist.

beforeolives 6y ago

The message is that consistency matters and that strong leadership can produce good results in the right circumstances. Top-down isn't necessarily a bad thing. And what are the alternatives? No consistency throughout the company would mean that there wouldn't be any company culture to speak of. And if your processes aren't (ultimately) top-down, then what's the company leadership actually for?

meheleventyone 6y ago
I think it's basically the thought that a great culture is one that is strongly held. The wheels are liable to come off quite quickly if that's the only criteria. I'm confused because it's quite simplistic and reductive. The obvious alternative is a bottom up organization of culture although most companies are not setup for that to work well. The actual reality is going to be a combination of both. I'm sure everyone's worked in environments where the corporate values are treated as a joke.
watwut 6y ago
It seems to me that it will prevent adaptation to changes.
michaelt 6y ago
Some values ought to be universal across a company. I'm sure everyone at Volvo could agree that driver safety is a high priority. Other values may well vary between departments - People working on the car's software can do weekly releases at little or no cost with lightweight planning - but the injection-moulded door handle will need a $$$$$ mould and several months for every design change, so they'd certainly better have frozen the design several months before product launch. There might not be much common ground on ideas like starting with an MVP and iterating, moving fast, dealing with changing requirements, two week sprints, and so on.

dh2424 6y ago

Yeah, it certainly doesn't define what great company culture actually is.

paulcole 6y ago
I think it does. Great culture is different for everyone. I like a culture built around fast innovation. My friend likes a culture built around slow and steady progress. Neither culture is right or wrong, they are just different. But a great company culture is one (regardless of its core tenets) that’s followed strongly throughout the organization, top to bottom, starting with the CEO.

sokoloff 6y ago

Though I’m an atheist, I think that many different churches do good things for their participants from a community and social perspective, even though they may differ from each other significantly in their specific religious doctrine.

teachingassist 6y ago

The way I understand this is: consistency is important for managing expectations. Change is not a problem but consistent application of expectations is important (in my opinion, this would include expectations around how you manage change). If you have one set of expectations from one manager, and a different set of expectations from another manager, the complexity of your work just squared.

jodoherty 6y ago

The major takeaway for me is that with a strongly held culture, everyone in the company is playing the game by the same rules, making it clear how to succeed, how to fail, and as such, how to conduct business. It's also clear whether or not you would enjoy working there -- there's no finding the right team or department with its own culture if everyone has the same culture there. Of course, he doesn't explore whether or not the benefits of this are worth the disadvantages, and there's plenty of room for argument either way, especially with large organizations.

marcosdumay 6y ago
Well, of course, the complement is that a diverse culture is one where most people can find some place they can add value and be recognized, and if they get in a team they don't fit well, they can just move into a different one, instead of a completely new job. Both of those versions are gross oversimplifications.

watwut 6y ago

Yeah, it seems to me the same. I dont see that as massive positive.

TuringNYC 6y ago

>> I find this thread kind of confusing, it basically seems to say the culture itself doesn't matter. What matters is that it is strongly held. Which means top down, ritualized and vigorously defended against any attempts at change. Yes, because you're taking a significant risk joining any company (in the sense that you have limited time and want to go where you can have the most impact for the firm and best outcomes for your goals). You often dont know details about projects, people, etc -- but if you vibe with the culture, you can easily find your place there. If the culture is all over the place, it is hard to know from the outside. And if the culture is a mismatch for you, better to neither waste your time nor that of the firm. Without a strongly projected culture, that is hard to do.

lostlogin 6y ago

> I find this thread kind of confusing Having it split into tweets doesn’t help. I struggle to think of a worse format - perhaps a series of short videos would be worse?