31–40 of 176 posts
You hire the right people and they make the culture. Culture is NOT enforced. It is simply the reflection of you as a good or bad hire-er.
"Ruthless" anywhere in your value system is terrible, unless you are the military, or your mission statement is to "fight" something like cancer or child hunger. Second, management never knows how to solve a problem better, they just pick one and go with it. Third, a culture where everyone is always asking their boss to solve their problems? Yikes.
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.
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.
The thing I've seen, read and heard for years is "agency". Buzzword, but "having some ability to affect outcomes", so whether "I've moved the photocopier because people couldn't get to it where it was" or "I've moved the marketing team because they needed X" - as long as people feel they can make a difference, are listened to and their skills are used - they're more likely to be happy. And this, presumably mean "grea…
Agency is good, but only if people understand where they have agency and make changes in those areas and leave the others to someone else.
> Zuckerberg's response: "I'm building a company that I would want to work for if I hadn't started FB. And I would want to work at a place that shares openly." Still sharing everything 15 years later
lol culture at a big co...dont bs me plz.I've worked at big co's, and theres no culture there. Only places with any sort of character are small - mid sized startups.
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.
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.
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?
You hire the right people and they make the culture. Culture is NOT enforced. It is simply the reflection of you as a good or bad hire-er.
The vast majority of programmers are male, so if you only hire the best you might go a long time without hiring any females, thus developing a male-only culture. I've been told the worst case of this is one female the rest males, as the one female encourages that bad parts of male only culture to ensure that she is always the most powerful female in the room (because she is the only one). None of this needs to be true, but when you only have 3 males total you need to ensure that you are not developing female hostile culture by accident. Once you have a few females around they can moderate the male only culture, but going from 1 to a few is hard because the great females you want to hire will check your culture and not even apply thus locking you out of that market.
I used females, but there are plenty of other minorities. If the subject was nurses you would reverse the minorities, some of their cultures are male hostile.