> It's not with showing off office pictures of employees playing around with nerf guns. Those are gimmicks. Culture is not defined by a fancy workplace. It's all about the people.
I wish more people understood this. For me personally, seeing offices full of nerf guns and foosball tables turns me off, because I worry they're focusing on that instead of real culture -- managers that don't micromanage, a sense of vision that's being communicated well, employees being listened to in a real way, etc.
It's easy to buy nerf guns. It's hard to create a company culture that thrives. I'm sure you can have both, but the nerf guns don't mean anything.
And me personally, I'd rather not have the nerf guns, because it's clear they are just gimmicks, and I trust a workplace more if they can attract good employees without gimmicks.
I'm with you on this one.I also don't like to play with people I work with, Its that simple...
People at work should judge me on the value I bring to the company, not on whether I like techno or their preferred brand of alcohol (see original post)
While I agree with the parent, it is still worthwhile to distinguish places that judge you based on those preferences or activities and those that simply encourage you to have them. Sometimes a small part of your value is getting others to be more relaxed, social, or just half-engaged until the idea they've been searching for all week comes tumbling out mid-pingpong swat. Granted, there are environments and people who function better with a clear boundary between work and play, but I bet that a large number of people who decry the mix would have second thoughts if play meant a game of chess, word association (pictionary? more UX departments could probably benefit...), cards, or whatever. I don't mean to say that tossing a football and playing chess are the same thing, but when not explicitly working they can still have positive effects. And hey, while the techno-blast-developer floor may be an annoying fad, I don't see anything wrong from a management perspective to find people who, in general, appreciate similar things. If you look closely you can see this very clearly in design studios (though I believe it applies to virtually anything creative, programming included)– people collaborating on a project while one listens to delta blues and the other Vivaldi will may have very altered perspectives, however fleeting, than two others who share a love of Phillip Glass.
I see the gimmick culture stuff as more of a way for employees to brag about where they are. It's harder to explain to somebody without a software background why the company culture where you work is great when you can just say "Oh, and we have free beer in the fridge and weekly nerf battles!"
That said, I agree with you that people shouldn't be using these gimmicks to guide their career choices, and I never would.
"How do you attract those Jobsian A-players?" and "let the culture naturally build itself."
I think this is one of the biggest fallacies of "startup culture" and possibly of business strategy in general.
This idea that you can hire the right people and culture magically comes out of it is ludicrous. Yes, a lot of your culture is based on personalities and people you can't control, and hiring is still important. But it is incredible to me how people will rise to the culture they're a part of, and how culture and the systems surrounding people will enable them to become better.
Define your company culture well. Know what kind of company you want, and create that kind of culture. Hire based on that as best you can, with people you believe will fit with your culture. But when you invariably end up with people who aren't those perfect rockstar A-listers you think you need, don't throw them away. Stick to your culture and be emphatic about it. Teach them, allow them to learn. Have a culture of positive personal development, not static employee hiring or firing decisions.
Do you think Stripe hires 100% perfect employees? Do you really think that's why their culture works?
I think it's the exact opposite. Their employees work because they've figured out a great culture, and they value it highly, and hold it as sacred. That's a company value, not an employee value. It's shared, and it comes from the whole group, glued together by the resolve of a leadership that knows it.
Figure that out, and you can achieve what Stripe has. If you think it's just a hiring strategy; sorry, try again.
What I was trying to say is that it's well nigh impossible to force a culture to go in a certain way. Most you can do is have a certain type of work process, don't micromanage, have a flat structure, small teams and let people be independent and/or support employees working remotely if they wish (if you want that kind of culture that is).
"Hire based on that as best you can, with people you believe will fit with your culture"
I was also saying that you can't really determine culture fit in the course of a regular interview process. You can somewhat determine their work ethic from asking them about past experiences and projects.
Otherwise, I think we are pretty much saying the same thing.
Awesome. I guess my addition to what you said is basically that you can lead your company culture to a degree, by doing the kinds of things you mention and creating a structure that supports a good culture. Also culture really does affect people once you reach a certain size. I think you're mainly talking about smaller companies, basically how to "bootstrap culture", but it's important to keep it going as you grow and realize not only how your employees affect your culture, but how your culture affects your employees.
> I think it's the exact opposite. Their employees work because they've figured out a great culture, and they value it highly, and hold it as sacred. That's a company value, not an employee value. It's shared, and it comes from the whole group, glued together by the resolve of a leadership that knows it.
I think one can tell a lot about companies and people by the way they hire. Is their attitude extractive or do they act to preserve and create value? I think a lot of people greedily seek A-Listers because they've heard that's the way to succeed and make money. To me, that's sort of like people who start playing a new genre of music because it's now cool. The real value is in people who are passionate for deeper reasons.
Paul, your ability to refrain from micromanaging is probably the #1 thing towards trust and building a great culture. You need to hire the right people so you don't have to micromanage, but that's a given.
I am really getting sick of this word, "Startup". It seems like every other article I read is an article about a "Startup". Let's call them what they are, a small business. No more hipster talk :(
Startup has a very specific definition. It refers to a company that aims to solve a problem and/or create something new in a particular industry. This means that it is a subset of the small business category; the corner deli that just opened up last week is a small business, but not a startup. On the other hand, a new tech firm that is trying to figure out an innovative alternative to email is both a small business and a startup.
I'd say the biggest thing that distinguishes startups from other small businesses is the risk factor. When your goal is to solve challenging problems in your field, then by definition your chances of success are low. After all, the problems are categorized as "challenging for a reason: nobody has been able to find a simple and elegant solution to them yet. Whereas a typical small business operates on relatively safe territory - they are most likely providing identical products and services as other players in their industry. So their risk is a lot lower.
I've generally worked in "startup" environments, and I actually do mentally translate that word into "small business." I consider it to have more realistic connotations. YMMV of course.
Granted the term is probably overused, not in this case though. Picplum is building a scalable web business and has taken on funding, seems pretty much a startup to me.
I wish more people understood this. For me personally, seeing offices full of nerf guns and foosball tables turns me off, because I worry they're focusing on that instead of real culture -- managers that don't micromanage, a sense of vision that's being communicated well, employees being listened to in a real way, etc.
It's easy to buy nerf guns. It's hard to create a company culture that thrives. I'm sure you can have both, but the nerf guns don't mean anything.
And me personally, I'd rather not have the nerf guns, because it's clear they are just gimmicks, and I trust a workplace more if they can attract good employees without gimmicks.