Got this concept from a Stowe Boyd newsletter, and it goes a little something like this:
- Dynamic culture!
- Modern culture!
- Recognition culture!
- 21st-century culture!
- Transparent culture!
- Innovative culture!
- Etc, etc.
We’ve all heard this bullshit, and we’ve all worked in places where this bullshit is peddled to the masses as if the word before the word “culture” is supposed to actually mean something, when it almost never does. An “innovative culture” typically means they hit on one product about 17 years ago, it still sells well, and they keep hiring engineers from good schools hoping for a second roll in the hay. A “transparent culture” typically means someone periodically holds all-hands meetings, but if you even tangentially criticize a senior leader, you’ll be on a PIP in a New York cocaine heartbeat.
Cultures are often designed and described in these ways, but … it usually is full of absolute nothingness. Culture then becomes a suitcase word (carries a lot of definitions), and suitcase words are loved by leaders because it runs everyone in circles wondering what XYZ means, which gives them time to go back to analyzing financial documents incorrectly. (No greater joy in an executive world than that.) This is the same problem with “purpose” at work. To some, the purpose of work is making a lot of money. To some, it’s being able to wear jeans. Because the purpose is so individual in nature, any discussion of purpose creates a sea of confusion, which, again, executives love. Same with culture. If you privately asked most senior leaders in a for-profit to define culture, they would say they have a “sales culture.” All of them say that shit. It’s all they really know or understand, because it’s most of what they interact with.
At this point, I wish we would stop writing articles about culture. I know it’s had a renaissance of late because the definitions of culture had to shift with remote, on-premise, and hybrid models — but the thing is, no one really knows what it means, we ascribe lots of different bullshit to it, and I doubt it’s something any executive is staying up at night wondering about. Even in this moment, if an exec is in a spot where they’re worried about turnover, I’d virtually guarantee you the first thought is not “Hey, maybe this soulless hellhole I created is alienating people and they’re finding other opportunities to try.” I guarantee you the first thought is something like “skills gap.” So are they prioritizing the culture, or “how the market explains something?” Right. The market. And just like culture supposedly eats strategy for breakfast (it doesn’t), what really eats culture for breakfast is whatever the market says.
Takes?
