5 ms·

This thread isn't really clarifying or defining what a "great" culture constitutes, and it strongly suffers from survivorship bias. The author is pointing out

by ysavir 6y ago

This thread isn't really clarifying or defining what a "great" culture constitutes, and it strongly suffers from survivorship bias. The author is pointing out that a necessary ingredient (among others omitted) is strong culture--which is something of a tautology. Of course a company with great culture has a strong culture; if it were a weak culture, it wouldn't be pervasive or definitive of the company. A company with weakly held cultures wouldn't be described as a "company with great culture". At best it would be described as a "company with great team cultures", at worst a "company without culture". But none of these three statements hold any inherent truth about how productive the company might be, how happy people might be working at said companies, the values of the people working for these companies, or how the collective values of the employees impact the company. The author is also looking at two companies that have been around for 15+ years. Where is the evaluation of all the companies with similar leadership values to Amazon and Facebook that didn't survive? Was their strong culture an aid or a hindrance? Did they fail despite their strong culture or because of it? Where is the evaluation of companies with similar success and longevity that don't have top-down cultural values? Can we say definitively that they don't have great culture? I appreciate that the author has a lot of respect for and values the culture of previous employers, but when asking the question "What defines a great company culture?", I would hope for a more substantive answer. Reinforcing that "whatever the cultural values might be they have to be strongly endorsed by the leadership" can be part of that, but that's describing something other than the "great culture" itself.

EGreg 6y ago
This kind of comment is underrated. A lot of advice is really survivorship bias descriptions! Relatively useful: “All you need is access to capital, or a lot of stuff that can only be done with capital, and that’s what you’re missing, girl.” Not useful at all: “What you really need is this cargo-cult aspect that the successful companies have years after their success, but also tons of failed companies have that we never consider, and it isn’t the main reason for the company’s success”
- riffraff 6y ago
  "Built to Last: Successful Habits of Visionary Companies" is a very good book on what makes companies great, and a lot of the points echo this twitter thread, especially "cult-like culture". It's also very interesting because quite a few of the "visionary companies" have failed in the 30 years since it was written.
  - 7thaccount 6y ago
    Same with Good to Great (I think that was also written by the same guy). Some of those companies applauded are still doing well and others are embroiled in scandals of various sorts.
    - nython 6y ago
      If I remember correctly, 'The Halo effect' by Rosenzweig has a pretty critical retrospective on these two books.
      - 7thaccount 6y ago
        I had to read it for a leadership class. It had some great stories, but people overlook that the CEOs interviewed all said "luck" was a huge factor. So the rest of the book seemed like it was partly BS. For example, Walgreens sold off their lucrative restaurant business and put all new stores in extremely high traffic areas and became the seller of not only prescriptions, but random things people need, but don't want to go to Walmart for. It paid off nicely, but it was extremely controversial at the time. They also didn't freak out when internet dotcom companies (set to take over the industry) popped up as they knew those competitors were missing the entire supply chain. Instead they took their time and automated things better to make customers happy in a different way like automated phone ordering. Was all of that genius, or luck. Maybe a bit of both. The same story with Barnes & Nobel and Amazon doesn't turn out so well.
        ak217 6y ago
qznc 6y ago
A company culture is great if it fits the company strategy. In other words, the company should value internally what the customers like about the company. It might high quality or agility or efficiency or whatever. If a company changes its strategy, the culture can be too strong. You can see that a lot where established hardware companies struggle to adopt more of a software culture. A culture can be too weak to support the company strategy in any meaningful way. That is a competitive disadvantage because there is a lot more need for communication and coordination.
- selestify 6y ago
  What are the differences between hardware and software culture?
  - foobiekr 6y ago
    Software people are comparatively terrible at schedules, schedule fidelity, long term planning (in terms of what needs to be considered now to satisfy anticipated requirements later), cost management, cost over time modeling, and day one quality, among other things.
    - uxp100 6y ago
      Well, having worked at a hardware company I think you over estimate how accurate hardware schedules are. And day one quality is more about how you define day one I think. (Some types of hardware) you can release A01 to "internal customers" but the broader public's experience is over a year and several spins later. No disagreement on the long term planning aspect though.
  - qznc 6y ago
    With hardware the lead times are longer and there are no updates after delivery. Thus, a waterfall approach is more suitable. Customers can actually provide useful and comprehensive requirements.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
dustinmoris 6y ago
Agreed! Microsoft is a great example of a company which had... a) many cultural shifts over time b) still is a company with many different sub team cultures ...and regardless of where they were on the spectrum they have always managed to sell Windows, Office and SQL Server very well.
- BayAreaEscapee 6y ago
  I saw a video once, the goal of which was to sell to Microsoft execs how to market the first Xbox. The video explained that the target market wasn't fortysomething guys wearing suits in cubicles. It was skateboarders with tattoos on their neck. (And many other demographics that varied significantly from middle-aged IT people).
  - alex_anglin 6y ago
    As a middle-aged IT person, that sounds like poor advice to me for two reasons: 1. Marketing to the 'cool kids' with the expectation that everyone else will follow-along... is probably not good advice in the absence some key differentiation. For Microsoft, this could have just been the massive amounts of capital they could deploy towards getting the Xbox to market. Even then, just spending money is not a strategy. 2. Middle-aged IT people are likely to have more disposable income to afford a $X00 device and a library of games (where the real revenue is). They could also be thought to have less leisure time and place more value on it accordingly, which would correspond to spending decisions. They may also see themselves as 'skateboarders with tattoos.' There's nothing demographic specific about those properties.
    - jhrozek 6y ago
      Regarding 2. — are you sure the people with disposable income would buy a gaming console of all things? I mean it requires time to enjoy which is something a middle aged person trying to dance between family and work doesn’t have.. Also those younger people that are being targeted have middle aged parents with money:) Of course it’s entirely possible that you’re right and I’m just bitter that I can’t spend more time gaming :)
dasil003 6y ago
Yeah, a lot of this is just retroactive justification and narrative building, which then gets cargo culted because everyone wants to repeat the success. But in fact what makes these billion dollar companies successful is the outlier confluence of product-market fit, timing, strong execution, and a million small decisions along the way that compounded returns on a few lucky breaks. I don't doubt the importance of company culture to operate effectively, but I am very skeptical of crediting the success mega corps to any particular aspect of company culture.
jiveturkey 6y ago
As the post says, "the knife cuts both ways". You're missing the point! One can't say what are the cultural elements of "great". All you can do is tradeoff one element for another. What defines a great company culture is one that is held consistently, and that you, personally, as a person with your own particular outlook (let's call it red or blue), enjoy and are productive in. What's great for you is not what's great for another. Too bad we can't understand this in our politics. > Reinforcing that "whatever the cultural values might be they have to be strongly endorsed by the leadership" can be part of that, but that's describing something other than the "great culture" itself. Necessarily so! You cannot define "great" culture because there is no such single thing. You can define consistency, though. This is the critical element because it means that you can predict the repercussions of your actions and act accordingly. Rewards and punishments don't feel capricious and subject to "politics". You don't have to guess what your particular manager will do based on his particular and inconsistent whims.
- spawarotti 6y ago
  > What's great for you is not what's great for another. > Too bad we can't understand this in our politics Unless you have a very good reason to not get a vaccine and not wear a mask I will expect from you to do these things. Not because I don't understand what's not great for you. It's because I understand the objective reality of the disease.
- ysavir 6y ago
  True, but none of this changes that the author didn't answer their own opening question. If it was framed as "How can a company support great culture"?, then it would be a fantastic thread to read through for those curious. But leading with one question and then answering another is essentially click-bait.
fsociety 6y ago
My view on what the thread is saying, is that having everyone aligned on the same page of how to work and communicate means you don’t waste time on arguing on how to work and communicate. Instead things become frictionless and the organization can become fluid.
hbarka 6y ago
Reminds me of the “Bullet Holes and Abraham Wald” lesson in survivorship bias https://onebiteblog.com/finding-the-missing-bullet-holes/ https://onebiteblog.com/finding-the-missing-bullet-holes/

by ysavir 6y ago

EGreg 6y ago

This kind of comment is underrated. A lot of advice is really survivorship bias descriptions! Relatively useful: “All you need is access to capital, or a lot of stuff that can only be done with capital, and that’s what you’re missing, girl.” Not useful at all: “What you really need is this cargo-cult aspect that the successful companies have years after their success, but also tons of failed companies have that we never consider, and it isn’t the main reason for the company’s success”

riffraff 6y ago
"Built to Last: Successful Habits of Visionary Companies" is a very good book on what makes companies great, and a lot of the points echo this twitter thread, especially "cult-like culture". It's also very interesting because quite a few of the "visionary companies" have failed in the 30 years since it was written.
- 7thaccount 6y ago
  Same with Good to Great (I think that was also written by the same guy). Some of those companies applauded are still doing well and others are embroiled in scandals of various sorts.
  - nython 6y ago
    If I remember correctly, 'The Halo effect' by Rosenzweig has a pretty critical retrospective on these two books.
    - 7thaccount 6y ago
      I had to read it for a leadership class. It had some great stories, but people overlook that the CEOs interviewed all said "luck" was a huge factor. So the rest of the book seemed like it was partly BS. For example, Walgreens sold off their lucrative restaurant business and put all new stores in extremely high traffic areas and became the seller of not only prescriptions, but random things people need, but don't want to go to Walmart for. It paid off nicely, but it was extremely controversial at the time. They also didn't freak out when internet dotcom companies (set to take over the industry) popped up as they knew those competitors were missing the entire supply chain. Instead they took their time and automated things better to make customers happy in a different way like automated phone ordering. Was all of that genius, or luck. Maybe a bit of both. The same story with Barnes & Nobel and Amazon doesn't turn out so well.
      - ak217 6y ago

qznc 6y ago

A company culture is great if it fits the company strategy. In other words, the company should value internally what the customers like about the company. It might high quality or agility or efficiency or whatever. If a company changes its strategy, the culture can be too strong. You can see that a lot where established hardware companies struggle to adopt more of a software culture. A culture can be too weak to support the company strategy in any meaningful way. That is a competitive disadvantage because there is a lot more need for communication and coordination.

selestify 6y ago
What are the differences between hardware and software culture?
- foobiekr 6y ago
  Software people are comparatively terrible at schedules, schedule fidelity, long term planning (in terms of what needs to be considered now to satisfy anticipated requirements later), cost management, cost over time modeling, and day one quality, among other things.
  - uxp100 6y ago
    Well, having worked at a hardware company I think you over estimate how accurate hardware schedules are. And day one quality is more about how you define day one I think. (Some types of hardware) you can release A01 to "internal customers" but the broader public's experience is over a year and several spins later. No disagreement on the long term planning aspect though.
- qznc 6y ago
  With hardware the lead times are longer and there are no updates after delivery. Thus, a waterfall approach is more suitable. Customers can actually provide useful and comprehensive requirements.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

dustinmoris 6y ago

Agreed! Microsoft is a great example of a company which had... a) many cultural shifts over time b) still is a company with many different sub team cultures ...and regardless of where they were on the spectrum they have always managed to sell Windows, Office and SQL Server very well.

BayAreaEscapee 6y ago
I saw a video once, the goal of which was to sell to Microsoft execs how to market the first Xbox. The video explained that the target market wasn't fortysomething guys wearing suits in cubicles. It was skateboarders with tattoos on their neck. (And many other demographics that varied significantly from middle-aged IT people).
- alex_anglin 6y ago
  As a middle-aged IT person, that sounds like poor advice to me for two reasons: 1. Marketing to the 'cool kids' with the expectation that everyone else will follow-along... is probably not good advice in the absence some key differentiation. For Microsoft, this could have just been the massive amounts of capital they could deploy towards getting the Xbox to market. Even then, just spending money is not a strategy. 2. Middle-aged IT people are likely to have more disposable income to afford a $X00 device and a library of games (where the real revenue is). They could also be thought to have less leisure time and place more value on it accordingly, which would correspond to spending decisions. They may also see themselves as 'skateboarders with tattoos.' There's nothing demographic specific about those properties.
  - jhrozek 6y ago
    Regarding 2. — are you sure the people with disposable income would buy a gaming console of all things? I mean it requires time to enjoy which is something a middle aged person trying to dance between family and work doesn’t have.. Also those younger people that are being targeted have middle aged parents with money:) Of course it’s entirely possible that you’re right and I’m just bitter that I can’t spend more time gaming :)

dasil003 6y ago

Yeah, a lot of this is just retroactive justification and narrative building, which then gets cargo culted because everyone wants to repeat the success. But in fact what makes these billion dollar companies successful is the outlier confluence of product-market fit, timing, strong execution, and a million small decisions along the way that compounded returns on a few lucky breaks. I don't doubt the importance of company culture to operate effectively, but I am very skeptical of crediting the success mega corps to any particular aspect of company culture.

jiveturkey 6y ago

As the post says, "the knife cuts both ways". You're missing the point! One can't say what are the cultural elements of "great". All you can do is tradeoff one element for another. What defines a great company culture is one that is held consistently, and that you, personally, as a person with your own particular outlook (let's call it red or blue), enjoy and are productive in. What's great for you is not what's great for another. Too bad we can't understand this in our politics. > Reinforcing that "whatever the cultural values might be they have to be strongly endorsed by the leadership" can be part of that, but that's describing something other than the "great culture" itself. Necessarily so! You cannot define "great" culture because there is no such single thing. You can define consistency, though. This is the critical element because it means that you can predict the repercussions of your actions and act accordingly. Rewards and punishments don't feel capricious and subject to "politics". You don't have to guess what your particular manager will do based on his particular and inconsistent whims.

spawarotti 6y ago
> What's great for you is not what's great for another. > Too bad we can't understand this in our politics Unless you have a very good reason to not get a vaccine and not wear a mask I will expect from you to do these things. Not because I don't understand what's not great for you. It's because I understand the objective reality of the disease.
ysavir 6y ago
True, but none of this changes that the author didn't answer their own opening question. If it was framed as "How can a company support great culture"?, then it would be a fantastic thread to read through for those curious. But leading with one question and then answering another is essentially click-bait.

fsociety 6y ago

My view on what the thread is saying, is that having everyone aligned on the same page of how to work and communicate means you don’t waste time on arguing on how to work and communicate. Instead things become frictionless and the organization can become fluid.

hbarka 6y ago

Reminds me of the “Bullet Holes and Abraham Wald” lesson in survivorship bias https://onebiteblog.com/finding-the-missing-bullet-holes/ https://onebiteblog.com/finding-the-missing-bullet-holes/