4 ms·
I've seen a company's culture effectively be killed overnight because one "low performer" was cut off. Not every impact an employee has is directly represented
by hnbad 4y ago
I've seen a company's culture effectively be killed overnight because one "low performer" was cut off. Not every impact an employee has is directly represented in their own bottom line.
The company in question was able to stomach this because it would go on to undergo significant structural changes anway but it basically had to start building a new company culture from scratch and doing it top-down is much harder than building on something you've developed organically via your early hires.
EDIT: Since I'm rate-limited right now, I'll elaborate here: it was a company with a number of employees in the low 2 digits at the time and the employee in question had been involved (indirectly via another venture in the same office space and later directly) since before the company even got off the ground. They were in a non-technical role at a tech company but on good terms with most employees and genuinely cheerful about company branding and everyone being "the company" rather than just working on cool tech that happened to be sold by that company. Basically they acted as social glue, both between other employees but also between those employees and the company. Some other (higher performing) employees left after them but I doubt most could point at what it was that pushed them to quit even though this employee's departure was likely a major contributing factor. I could go into more detail but I want to preserve the anonymity of everyone involved, especially those no longer working at the company.
- stackbutterflow 4y agoCould you expand on that? I'm curious to know how one employee can single-handedly carry the company's culture.
- ceejayoz 4y agoI've seen individuals who are the primary connection between two important departments; say IT and sales, speaking both languages enough to translate. On paper, not much work done; in reality, critical for smooth operation.
- MichaelZuo 4y agoThe dynamics of a low 2 digit employee company is very different from the dynamics of a company with many thousands. In the latter case it's simply impossible for a single person, not in middle-management or exec level, to be in a critical 'social glue' position. Dunbar's number, etc.,
- hnbad 4y agoThat is true at a company level but if you want to have an authentic company culture, you need more glue, not less. Managers can fulfill that function to some degree but the key difference is that managers are in a position of power towards the rest of the team, which changes the social dynamics and makes it harder for them to create cohesion within the team the same way someone at the team's level can. This is also extremely difficult to hire for. So what you usually end up at 3 or 4 digit companies is astroturf and mandatory fun days. The adhesion to the company will be fueled by sales and marketing, the cohesion within teams will be imposed by team building techniques. It's all very artificial and superficial because you can't grow social bonds top-down. It can be profitable and when you've grown this large employee churn will likely be less of a problem (see Meta) but it's a much less pleasant environment to exist in as a human being.