Live data from Hacker News

What defines a great company culture?

twitter.com

11–20 of 176 posts

Re: What defines a great company culture?

#11
post #4

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.

A good company culture is one that the whole company follows. As opposed to a bad company culture, where there is basically no global culture to speak of, and every manager has their own little fiefdoms.

Fiefdoms are bad, but is a company monoculture necessarily a good thing? Perhaps different teams (especially if geographically dispersed) can adopt a culture that works for them rather than follow some top-down mandate that they'll follow half-heartedly if at all.

Re: What defines a great company culture?

#12
> They key to a strong culture is consistency from the top. The CEO's job is to make sure everyone on the management team is on the same page. If a senior leader wants to create their own unique culture for their part of the org, they can't be allowed to stay.

I love this entire thread and it resonates a lot with me. I, too, believe that there is not THE right company culture that will solve everybody’s problems. Many in the agile or “new work” camp seem to believe that their way is the ONLY way, for example.

Consistency is much more important than how the culture actually is.

Re: What defines a great company culture?

#13

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 way I understand this is: consistency is important for managing expectations.

Change is not a problem but consistent application of expectations is important (in my opinion, this would include expectations around how you manage change).

If you have one set of expectations from one manager, and a different set of expectations from another manager, the complexity of your work just squared.

Re: What defines a great company culture?

#14

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?

I think it's basically the thought that a great culture is one that is strongly held. The wheels are liable to come off quite quickly if that's the only criteria. I'm confused because it's quite simplistic and reductive.

The obvious alternative is a bottom up organization of culture although most companies are not setup for that to work well. The actual reality is going to be a combination of both. I'm sure everyone's worked in environments where the corporate values are treated as a joke.

Re: What defines a great company culture?

#15
Bad cultures ignore values, or have toxic values and toxic social outcomes.

Good cultures incorporate values, live them consistently rather than just talking about them, and have good values and outcomes.

This isn't just a moral position. Your culture is like code. Ethics define your edge cases. You do not want code - or a culture - that works of the time, but collapses when it has to deal with an input that is difficult or unexpected.

Re: What defines a great company culture?

#18

Great for whom ?

Great question - it depends what (or who) you’re optimising for.

I’m generalising, but as an example:

The optimal culture to get very difficult things done far more quickly and efficiently than other companies could (think SpaceX) probably often won’t have the best work-life balance. In contrast, a culture which optimises (at least partly) for employee well-being will very likely lose some edge, efficiency, innovation, drive… along the way.

There are of course myriad other variables, but there probably isn’t an ideal answer to the culture question: it all depends on what you want to do, and how you’re willing to act to do it.

Re: What defines a great company culture?

#19
post #11
post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A good company culture is one that the whole company follows. As opposed to a bad company culture, where there is basically no global culture to speak of, and every manager has their own little fiefdoms.

Fiefdoms are bad, but is a company monoculture necessarily a good thing? Perhaps different teams (especially if geographically dispersed) can adopt a culture that works for them rather than follow some top-down mandate that they'll follow half-heartedly if at all.

> that they'll follow half-heartedly if at all

At that point it’s bad company culture right?

Re: What defines a great company culture?

#20
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 "great company culture" too.

Post reply on HN