May 16, 2008

the cultural problem

changethesystem117AA.jpg
So some­body was asking me the other day, “What’s the deal with these large tech com­pa­nies? As soon as they get to a cer­tain age and/or size, they all seem to go into ‘cri­sis’ mode…”
My reply was, well, when you think about it, these large com­pa­nies are in most ways very for­tu­nate. They have lots of money, lots of smart peo­ple wor­king for them, lots of com­bi­ned know­ledge, and lots of mate­rial capi­tal to build other stuff with.
i.e. The have lots of capi­tal– human, finan­cial, inte­llec­tual, tech­ni­cal etc etc.
But they will also have a lot of bag­gage. Lots and lots of dif­fe­rent entrenched posi­tions to defend. Thou­sands of them.
So they way I see it, their pro­blem isn’t “mate­rial”. Their pro­blem is CULTURAL.

It’s not the sum of their parts that is the pro­blem; it’s the way human beings relate with each other, inte­ract with each other, that is cau­sing the pro­blem.

i.e. Often with tech com­pa­nies, we wrongly blame the pro­blems on the tech itself. As with all things com­mer­cial, it’s the peo­ple that mat­ter.
[UPDATE:] One of my favo­rite mar­ke­ting wri­ters, my friend, Mark Earls left a com­ment below:

Great post, mate. And spot on.
I find it stri­king that all the dif­fe­rent kinds of mana­gers I meet in all kinds of dif­fe­rent sec­tors still pre­fer to desc­ribe and draw their busi­nes­ses as if they were a machine or some tech­ni­cal thing at least; how they pre­fer tech­ni­cal soun­ding stra­te­gies and defi­ni­tions of their cha­llen­ges (“the busi­ness plan­ning pro­cess” etc) to the honest accep­tance that the rea­son why all busi­nes­ses are tricky beasts is that they’re built on, with and by humans.
Of course, it’d be easier if busi­nes­ses were more like machi­nes but they’re not. And if stra­te­gies were like mecha­ni­cal (i.e. human-lite) things — borne of a robo-mind and imple­men­ted by an army of repli­cants, maybe.
The sad truth remains that everything in busi­ness is about peo­ple, their inte­rac­tions with each other and the ideas and assump­tions that shape those inte­rac­tions.
I’m not sure it’s just the tech busi­ness that suf­fer this way: finance, manu­fac­tu­ring, air­li­nes and — god bless, em — govern­ment agen­cies are just as delu­sio­nal about this stuff.
Go get ‘em!

9 Responses to “the cultural problem”

  1. John Martin says:

    “As with all things com­mer­cial, it’s the peo­ple that mat­ter.”
    Main­tai­ning the cor­po­rate cul­ture as an orga­ni­za­tion grows is inc­re­dibly dif­fi­cult. Goo­gle has done it. Apple and Mic­ro­soft have, too.
    Com­paq lost it and was for­ced to sell out to HP, who had lost it years before.
    So cul­ture doesn’t track well to success?

  2. Pratik Patel says:

    Com­pa­nies cer­tainly do end up having inter­nal con­flicts, whether they’re rela­ted to the vision of its products/services or jsut per­so­na­lity con­flicts. Often times, these com­pa­nies neither have the whe­re­withall to deal with them – i.e., chan­ne­ling these con­flicts to the company’s advan­tage. Expe­rien­ced exe­cu­ti­ves and mana­gers are able to help collapse these devia­ting visions into a unif­ying whole. I see Goo­gle as a prime exam­ple. Goo­gle encou­ra­ges dif­fe­rent thin­king and crea­tive pro­jects and then is able to fit these pro­jects into holes that appear to – some­ti­mes not so seem­lessly – make its ulti­mate mis­sion uni­que and suc­cess­ful. That is cer­tainly not to say that some of the company’s resour­ces – espe­cially human inte­llect and human beings – com­ple­tely mash into a uni­fied whole. Peo­ple leave. They must be allo­wed to do so without rec­ri­mi­na­tion. Com­pa­nies often let dif­fe­ren­ces fes­ter without addres­sing them when signs are appa­rent. Most times, it’s too late.

  3. None of this is new as Robert Townsend’s “Up the Orga­ni­za­tion: How to Stop the Cor­po­ra­tion from Sti­fling Peo­ple and Stran­gling Pro­fits” pro­ves. The book was first published more than 35 years ago. Some indi­vi­duals and cor­po­ra­tions “get it” and some don’t. It seems like it’s almost like a rite of pas­sage. Oh, and it’s not just tech companies.

  4. hugh macleod says:

    Mike, I agree, it’s nothing new.
    But what’s far more inte­res­ting to me is, the things one can do to com­bat it…

  5. “Often with tech com­pa­nies, we wrongly blame the pro­blems on the tech itself.”
    There is a much more gene­ra­li­zed pro­blem here. It’s not just tech com­pa­nies. Tech­no­logy is res­pon­si­ble for lots of stuff — good and bad, but too often in modern busi­ness it gets more blame for the bad than is really due. I assert that most all “tech­no­logy” fai­lu­res in busi­ness are really “cul­ture” fai­lings. ERP imple­men­ta­tion, soft­ware deve­lop­ment pro­jects, web site design, etc. Tech­no­logy is an easy scape goat.
    Great car­toon, BTW.
    –Matt

  6. Pål Hivand says:

    Matt: Maybe because tech solu­tions too often are imple­men­ted in order to solve pro­blems that are in essence cul­tu­ral.
    A busi­ness that doesn’t com­mu­ni­cate well all to often imple­ment some kind of soft­ware or tech, when a good solu­tion would be to just talk to the customer.

  7. Justin Thorp says:

    I think the need and desire for a qua­lity cor­po­rate cul­ture has to be something that’s entrenched in your mana­ge­ment and often’ isn’t.
    I’ve been lucky to work at a com­pany that’s run like a family. I rea­lize that it’s something that will be har­der to main­tain as the com­pany grows. I hope and pray that they won’t let things change… that it will stay a priority.

  8. Mark Earls says:

    Great post, mate. And spot on.
    I find it stri­king that all the dif­fe­rent kinds of mana­gers I meet in all kinds of dif­fe­rent sec­tors still pre­fer to desc­ribe and draw their busi­nes­ses as if they were a machine or some tech­ni­cal thing at least; how they pre­fer tech­ni­cal soun­ding stra­te­gies and defi­ni­tions of their cha­llen­ges (“the busi­ness plan­ning pro­cess” etc) to the honest accep­tance that the rea­son why all busi­nes­ses are tricky beasts is that they’re built on, with and by humans.
    Of course, it’d be easier if busi­nes­ses were more like machi­nes but they’re not. And if stra­te­gies were like mecha­ni­cal (i.e. human-lite) things — borne of a robo-mind and imple­men­ted by an army of repli­cants, maybe.
    The sad truth remains that everything in busi­ness is about peo­ple, their inte­rac­tions with each other and the ideas and assump­tions that shape those inte­rac­tions.
    I’m not sure it’s just the tech busi­ness that suf­fer this way: finance, manu­fac­tu­ring, air­li­nes and — god bless, em — govern­ment agen­cies are just as delu­sio­nal about this stuff.
    Go get ‘em!

  9. Katherine says:

    Jus­tin: Fami­lies can be dys­func­tio­nal, too.
    Mark: Hmmm. The “com­pany as machine” ana­logy may seem even more apt to tech com­pany mana­gers, many of whom got their start as engi­neers. (A group not noted for their peo­ple skills.)