Quite a few BigCos had a genuine job-for-life culture until the 70s recessions hit. A few managed to keep it going until the 80s.
The big cultural change happened in the early 80s as MBA culture became the norm, with a shift towards zero sum neoliberal extremism and the uncoupling of pay from productivity.
This is a great point. I think the big difference in 'culture' at BigCos is that when you're thinking about scales of thousands of employees, its impossible to try and really instill cultural values at a micro level, especially with things like bean bag chairs. It occurs at a much smaller level -- the team.
My 2c is that these transitions aren't about giving up culture, they're about changing to a different culture.
There are companies that make a lot of money and grow both organically and via acquisitions where people have a well-defined culture that attracts top talent... But it's a different kind of talent, it's the talent that enjoys building a lean, mean, money-making machine.
Historically, ITT was one of those companies during the Age of Conglomerates. Later on, IBM and Xerox come to mind. I recall that during the 80s and 90s having worked in management or sales for Xerox was a golden ticket to almost any job you wanted. Same with working in finance for GE.
What about working in management at Disney today? What about working in leadership with Apple or Amazon today? These are very well run companies with a strong management culture, growth, and profits. And investors love them.
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.
Cultures can absolutely change and evolve, in response to changes in leadership, new sources of revenue, or growth. Apple 1984 vs 1994 vs 2004 vs 2014 is a good example, particularly in the late 80s and 90s when it changed quite radically. Yet Steve Jobs' design-focused culture and marketing prowess (along with some negative aspects) re-emerged when he came back, and even as the company's growth exploded.
Google's cultural shift is not just a byproduct of growth, it's a byproduct of the founders and early leadership stepping back and professional technology executives and MBAs taking over. Compare that to Apple, which followed a similar journey but boomeranged back under Steve Jobs Act II. Cook, himself an MBA, is more in the Jobs mold when it comes to corporate ethics; I think his stance on privacy and other issues is admirable. And it's one of the largest tech companies in the world.
This kind of confirms a hunch I have which is that macro social beliefs change faster than corporate cultures. So a society as a whole might decide "men and women can work wherever they want" and start to teach children these values, but that doesn't mean the employees at a law or accounting firm are going to change their behaviors (not to mention their policies) at the same rate.
My father was a postal worker and described to me the process that the USPS used to improve their culture, and it involved new policies, procedures, and training for all employees.
Or maybe that's just reality of growth - the larger the organization the harder it is to keep a specific culture as founders can't align culture with all managers anymore, but have to let people go their way.
There are some fundamental limits to commitment-focused culture though. People have life obligations. Even if they wanted to work 60 hours a week, their sick mom or their childcare or their kitchen renovation or an especially busy graduation season for nieces and nephews just requires their time, and their knowledge that their job is secure and they won’t be penalized on raises, rewards, etc., for simply having a life.
Because of this, the commitment-focused path just doesn’t work, flat out. At best you can use it briefly to exploit unwitting young people who don’t know their worth and don’t have enough self-confidence to say no, and ride that into a pump and dump IPO situation, after which your company will promptly become process-focused and all the young people will quit and be replaced by mid-career people who don’t mind inheriting the mind-melting tech debt as long as you pay well and only expect 40 hours per week.
IMO Culture starts at the top. What was the CEO like at said former employer of yours? Did he lead the charge in assuming a more Spartan work schedule?
The last time I worked at a company where “money isn’t everything” with a focus on culture instead it was because they ended up getting bought out by a private firm where most eventually got laid off. Money talks, bullshit walks first and foremost while culture is what ensures those with competitive skill set and high salaries don’t jump ship for 10 percent more, but you still have to pay your employees well. You can’t pay your bills or afford your hobbies outside work with culture.
Having been there across the transition I'd say the culture changed enormously.
In particular I watched as a lot of the people I respected the most and identified as having made Google great, drifted away and left the firm. Most obviously all 3 leader/CEOs left. The complaining really started to ramp up after that. Larry/Sergey had ways to put those people back in their place in ways that weren't particularly aggressive but worked well (e.g. just mocking them at TGIF when a stupid question was asked). Culture needs to be renewed and cultivated. What remains now seems like a sort of hollowed out version of the culture that continues along its prior path through inertia, whilst slowly rotting away.
The big cultural change happened in the early 80s as MBA culture became the norm, with a shift towards zero sum neoliberal extremism and the uncoupling of pay from productivity.
reply