3 ms·

> 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

> 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. Your "it will usually change as the company grows" observation is worth discussing further. The reality is that "culture" as a lot of people in the Valley think of it simply doesn't scale. The environment you have at 10 employees is going to be different than the environment you had at 5 employees, the environment you have at 75 employees is going to be different than the environment you had at 25 employees, and so on and so forth. No matter how hard you try, the "culture" is going to change. Now, I won't argue that at the earliest stages of a company, how well folks get along is important. But a lot of founders over-optimize the wrong things (such as extracurricular activities) under the guise of "culture" and "culture fit" because they naively believe that folks can't get along and do great work if they don't have an environment that forces employees to form social bonds that resemble the type of social bonds that exist between friends and family. It's sad that more founders don't understand the concept of corporate values. Instead of trying to hire folks who look the same and want essentially the same experience from their job, it is possible to build a strong, diverse organizations united by shared values.

kelnos 12y ago
Oh, I absolutely agree with that. Re-reading my posts, I realize I wasn't clear: I definitely don't think much of this is valid or useful when talking about a company that's grown beyond 75 or so. The SV notion of company culture absolutely does not scale. But when you're 5 people, or, I'd even argue, 15, 30, or 50, working your asses off to get your first product to market, "getting along" in all those ways can be extremely important. Ironically, the only company where I've worked where there were somewhat-forced social activities was a large (>300 people) one, with the "HR bullshit" team-building exercises and the like. The small companies I've worked at certainly have had company-organized activities, but they always felt (to me, at least) much more informal and optional. My main examples are a company I joined at ~12 people, and left around 100, and another company where I joined around 60, and is now probably pushing 300. My current job is interesting because I was there when we had the company-organized stuff that most people wanted to participate in (while those who didn't were free to abstain, and there wasn't pressure to conform). Now we're getting large enough to either not have those things anymore, or have things that try to appeal to everyone, which ends up feeling more forced sometimes. On the plus side, we're still doing one-off informal things all the time that are generally employee-driven (rather than "official"), and the different activities attract different sub-groups within the company who are interested in those things. It's sad that more founders don't understand the concept of corporate values. Instead of trying to hire folks who look the same and want essentially the same experience from their job, it is possible to build a strong, diverse organizations united by shared values. I don't necessarily see that as good or bad. A strong, diverse organization isn't going to be the same (socially) as a more homogeneous org. I'm not going to draw a value judgment about either of those, because I think they're both valid choices that each company should be permitted to make for themselves (assuming they aren't actively discriminating against protected classes). It's certainly a choice that affects the company's trajectory and probably likelihood of success, but, again, I think that's a choice. Maybe the diverse org will net you a $1bn exit, and the "socially-integrated" choice gets you a $250mn exit, or even no exit at all. IMO it's about the journey and whether you felt it was a worthwhile experience.

kelnos 12y ago

Oh, I absolutely agree with that. Re-reading my posts, I realize I wasn't clear: I definitely don't think much of this is valid or useful when talking about a company that's grown beyond 75 or so. The SV notion of company culture absolutely does not scale. But when you're 5 people, or, I'd even argue, 15, 30, or 50, working your asses off to get your first product to market, "getting along" in all those ways can be extremely important. Ironically, the only company where I've worked where there were somewhat-forced social activities was a large (>300 people) one, with the "HR bullshit" team-building exercises and the like. The small companies I've worked at certainly have had company-organized activities, but they always felt (to me, at least) much more informal and optional. My main examples are a company I joined at ~12 people, and left around 100, and another company where I joined around 60, and is now probably pushing 300. My current job is interesting because I was there when we had the company-organized stuff that most people wanted to participate in (while those who didn't were free to abstain, and there wasn't pressure to conform). Now we're getting large enough to either not have those things anymore, or have things that try to appeal to everyone, which ends up feeling more forced sometimes. On the plus side, we're still doing one-off informal things all the time that are generally employee-driven (rather than "official"), and the different activities attract different sub-groups within the company who are interested in those things. It's sad that more founders don't understand the concept of corporate values. Instead of trying to hire folks who look the same and want essentially the same experience from their job, it is possible to build a strong, diverse organizations united by shared values. I don't necessarily see that as good or bad. A strong, diverse organization isn't going to be the same (socially) as a more homogeneous org. I'm not going to draw a value judgment about either of those, because I think they're both valid choices that each company should be permitted to make for themselves (assuming they aren't actively discriminating against protected classes). It's certainly a choice that affects the company's trajectory and probably likelihood of success, but, again, I think that's a choice. Maybe the diverse org will net you a $1bn exit, and the "socially-integrated" choice gets you a $250mn exit, or even no exit at all. IMO it's about the journey and whether you felt it was a worthwhile experience.