6 ms·

You're missing a few points: 1. Not everybody who works at these companies welcomes the blurring of their personal and professional lives equally. There are ab

You're missing a few points: 1. Not everybody who works at these companies welcomes the blurring of their personal and professional lives equally. There are absolutely employees who want an employer to provide a social experience, but you shouldn't assume that there aren't others who merely tolerate it because they want the job. 2. These types of environments create a certain level of peer pressure among employees. Don't want to go on weekend bike rides with the folks you work with because you have a significant other, friends of your own, etc.? Want to lunch quietly by yourself and recharge for the afternoon? Prefer not to do your happy hour drinking with your coworkers? Be careful. If you too frequently refuse to engage with your "family" outside of regular work hours, it's likely to be noticed. That's problematic when your employment is contingent on "culture fit." 3. From what I can tell, more and more companies, especially younger startups in San Francisco, have this type of approach, so it's increasingly difficult to escape if you're dead set on working at a typical early-stage startup here.

dasil003 12y ago
You make some good points, and I tend to personally agree because such work environments rub me the wrong way. It feels a little cultish and I like to have a little space between my personal and professional. But I also agree with the GP that we should leave room for different company cultures. The bottom line is all company cultures are dysfunctional in some way, and being a little co-dependent and insular is far from the worst crime. I'll take that any day over a place where good technical work is unrecognized or gets downright stifled because of politics.
- 7Figures2Commas 12y ago
  > But I also agree with the GP that we should leave room for different company cultures. I don't disagree at all. I would simply note, however, that there are a lot of startups out there complaining about how difficult it is to find talent. In many cases, an inane focus on building a "family" and hiring for "cultural fit" contributes to the challenge of attracting and retaining talent. It's somewhat surprising more founders don't recognize this. > ...being a little co-dependent and insular is far from the worst crime. I'll take that any day over a place where good technical work is unrecognized or gets downright stifled because of politics. I would suggest that these hyper-social environments are just as likely, if not more likely, to produce the type of outcome you loathe. When you're constantly socializing with your coworkers and your social circle becomes dominated by your colleagues, it's much more difficult to separate your personal biases from your professional behavior. In practical terms, this means popular employees who are good at what they do get ahead, popular employees who aren't as good as less popular employees still get ahead, and popular employees who don't pull their weight are far more likely to be cut some slack than less popular employees who don't deliver. This is popularity-based politics and it's absolutely detrimental to a company's success.
kelnos 12y ago
I'm not missing that at all, and I totally get that. In my early professional life I wanted a much more strict separation between work and non-work, but I've since changed. To address your points: 1. I think it's up to the founders and early employees to set the culture they want. It will usually change as the company grows, but my general feeling is that if you don't like a company's culture, don't join it. Yes, it sucks if you get a bad feel for it while interviewing, or are misled, but that should be the exception, not the rule. 2. The author of the original article actually directly addressed this, and pointed out that not everyone joins in, and it's ok. The kind of atmosphere where there's that pressure is indeed pretty toxic, but I don't think the family-type culture necessarily has that bug... though they certainly are a place where it can breed. But again: if you (as a founder/early employee) are willing to put up with a much smaller talent pool in search of people who really truly fit the culture you want, that's your choice and your business. 3. That's definitely a genuine concern, but I don't think it's ever really been any other way at small, early startups, at least in the Valley. My experience is certainly not extensive, but for the work-your-ass-off early startup type, they just tend to end up that way, because you spend so much time with your colleagues that closer bonds just end up forming. On the other hand, the non-crazy, have-a-life-outside-work type early startup is also a thing, and (I would guess) tends not to have that type of approach.
- greenyoda 12y ago
  "if you (as a founder/early employee) are willing to put up with a much smaller talent pool in search of people who really truly fit the culture you want, that's your choice and your business." It's your choice, unless your cultural norms are systematically (although perhaps not explicitly) discriminating against certain legally protected classes of people who are less likely to "fit in" to your culture. For example: - Women might not enjoy beer and pizza and sports as much as men do, so they "wouldn't be a good cultural fit". - People over 40, who have their own families and don't want to spend time socializing at work? They "wouldn't be a good cultural fit". - Members of religious groups who can't eat the food or drink the alcohol you serve at the office, e.g., religious Jews or Muslims? They just "wouldn't be a good cultural fit". So whenever these kinds of people apply for jobs at your company, you always pass them up in favor of someone who is a better cultural fit. See the problem?
jamra 12y ago
I would take point #2 a step further. These types of environments breed cliques. These cliquish groups will unite based on social similarities that are not work related. The elements on which they will unite will effect their working relationships. Those who are part of the clique will facilitate each other's projects. The problem comes only when there are people that are outside of the clique. Those who are outside of the clique thus be ostracized. Their projects will be held back in order to feed the power of the clique. The social friendships will become the decisive power in the company. This power is stronger than the CEO's. New employees will quickly see the unspoken pecking order. They will have to acquiesce or be at a huge disadvantage. Such is the nature of cliques inside of a supposedly flat hierarchy. Families are generally flat hierarchies and thus can succumb to these kinds of clique problems.

dasil003 12y ago

You make some good points, and I tend to personally agree because such work environments rub me the wrong way. It feels a little cultish and I like to have a little space between my personal and professional. But I also agree with the GP that we should leave room for different company cultures. The bottom line is all company cultures are dysfunctional in some way, and being a little co-dependent and insular is far from the worst crime. I'll take that any day over a place where good technical work is unrecognized or gets downright stifled because of politics.

7Figures2Commas 12y ago
> But I also agree with the GP that we should leave room for different company cultures. I don't disagree at all. I would simply note, however, that there are a lot of startups out there complaining about how difficult it is to find talent. In many cases, an inane focus on building a "family" and hiring for "cultural fit" contributes to the challenge of attracting and retaining talent. It's somewhat surprising more founders don't recognize this. > ...being a little co-dependent and insular is far from the worst crime. I'll take that any day over a place where good technical work is unrecognized or gets downright stifled because of politics. I would suggest that these hyper-social environments are just as likely, if not more likely, to produce the type of outcome you loathe. When you're constantly socializing with your coworkers and your social circle becomes dominated by your colleagues, it's much more difficult to separate your personal biases from your professional behavior. In practical terms, this means popular employees who are good at what they do get ahead, popular employees who aren't as good as less popular employees still get ahead, and popular employees who don't pull their weight are far more likely to be cut some slack than less popular employees who don't deliver. This is popularity-based politics and it's absolutely detrimental to a company's success.

kelnos 12y ago

I'm not missing that at all, and I totally get that. In my early professional life I wanted a much more strict separation between work and non-work, but I've since changed. To address your points: 1. I think it's up to the founders and early employees to set the culture they want. It will usually change as the company grows, but my general feeling is that if you don't like a company's culture, don't join it. Yes, it sucks if you get a bad feel for it while interviewing, or are misled, but that should be the exception, not the rule. 2. The author of the original article actually directly addressed this, and pointed out that not everyone joins in, and it's ok. The kind of atmosphere where there's that pressure is indeed pretty toxic, but I don't think the family-type culture necessarily has that bug... though they certainly are a place where it can breed. But again: if you (as a founder/early employee) are willing to put up with a much smaller talent pool in search of people who really truly fit the culture you want, that's your choice and your business. 3. That's definitely a genuine concern, but I don't think it's ever really been any other way at small, early startups, at least in the Valley. My experience is certainly not extensive, but for the work-your-ass-off early startup type, they just tend to end up that way, because you spend so much time with your colleagues that closer bonds just end up forming. On the other hand, the non-crazy, have-a-life-outside-work type early startup is also a thing, and (I would guess) tends not to have that type of approach.

greenyoda 12y ago
"if you (as a founder/early employee) are willing to put up with a much smaller talent pool in search of people who really truly fit the culture you want, that's your choice and your business." It's your choice, unless your cultural norms are systematically (although perhaps not explicitly) discriminating against certain legally protected classes of people who are less likely to "fit in" to your culture. For example: - Women might not enjoy beer and pizza and sports as much as men do, so they "wouldn't be a good cultural fit". - People over 40, who have their own families and don't want to spend time socializing at work? They "wouldn't be a good cultural fit". - Members of religious groups who can't eat the food or drink the alcohol you serve at the office, e.g., religious Jews or Muslims? They just "wouldn't be a good cultural fit". So whenever these kinds of people apply for jobs at your company, you always pass them up in favor of someone who is a better cultural fit. See the problem?

jamra 12y ago

I would take point #2 a step further. These types of environments breed cliques. These cliquish groups will unite based on social similarities that are not work related. The elements on which they will unite will effect their working relationships. Those who are part of the clique will facilitate each other's projects. The problem comes only when there are people that are outside of the clique. Those who are outside of the clique thus be ostracized. Their projects will be held back in order to feed the power of the clique. The social friendships will become the decisive power in the company. This power is stronger than the CEO's. New employees will quickly see the unspoken pecking order. They will have to acquiesce or be at a huge disadvantage. Such is the nature of cliques inside of a supposedly flat hierarchy. Families are generally flat hierarchies and thus can succumb to these kinds of clique problems.