You Need Culture Not a Cult
Why the right cultural blueprint focuses on core values and criticism.
by Jennifer Martin, Founder Leadership Well Done
Imagine you’re the hiring manager for an emerging company. You have an important role to fill, and you just completed your final round of interviews. There are 3 qualified candidates for you to choose from:
Candidate One has industry experience and specific job-related skills.
Candidate Two has raw talent and really seems like a shining star with potential.
Candidate Three is a self-starter, feels passionate about the mission and has the best cultural fit.
Which candidate do you choose?
According to the Stanford Project on Emerging Companies (SPEC), which tracked nearly two-hundred high-tech startups in Silicon Valley between 1980-2001, even in a fast-paced, built-to-flip industry environment, there was one common denominator for lasting success.
Regardless of the founders’ varying organizational ideas/models, and even within the technology boom to dot-com crash, those companies who hired for commitment, meaning alignment to company mission and core values, the failure rate as of June 2001 was ZERO.
A company culture driven by mission and centered around core values creates unity, directional focus, team engagement, and experience differentiators that drive high-customer satisfaction.
But there is a critical caveat to the commitment blueprint. Sole positioning around mission and core values is not a simple predicative indicator for high growth among their success.
Again, from the previously mentioned study, even though those companies who utilized a commitment strategy were sustainable, a greater percentage suffered from slower growth rates and lower stock-market values over the long-term.
Turns out when cohesiveness turns to universal conformity the result may be similar of a cult vs a healthy culture, as an overwhelming weakness with groupthink sinks in.
Groupthink discourages creativity and happens when a company becomes too insular. (Note: this can happen when a company only hires industry insiders as well)
When groupthink occurs, companies have a harder time recognizing the need for change. They become less likely to accept divergent thinking and therefore lack any original ideas. The adherence to core values (or traditional industry experience) begins to coddle the initial core business, stagnating growth and keeping products/services/processes like they have always been.
The shadow side of groupthink is an absence of innovation or necessary adaption needed for addressing progressive client demands and/or dynamic market conditions. This causes stalled growth and possibly a slow painful decline.
During these difficult times, often leaders habitually turn to trusted individuals for insights. These individuals also tend to think like them, which can in turn perpetuate the problem with again lack of any opposition or new ideas.
To prevent against groupthink, a successful/sustainable company culture must have a particular dichotomy. One that preserves the company’s core identity (commitment to mission and values) while implementing needed mechanisms to challenge current business and stimulate future growth.
Consider how this specific dichotomy was present inside President Lincoln’s unorthodox approach to cabinet selection.
At a time of national peril, Lincoln didn’t want to rely on his own judgements. He knew he needed to be surrounded by passionate outspoken leaders with strong opinions and sharp minds. His decisions to create a team of rivals, by appointing political adversaries such as Seward, Chase, Cameron and Bates, broke all expected party allegiance and preceding political norms.
But this atypical leadership captured cultural brilliance. Although cabinet members came from different political affiliations with divergent thinking, there were common mission/core values evident in love of country and wanting the still emerging US to succeed.
With the appointment of rivals to his cabinet, Lincoln had access to a wide range of opinions. Criticism breeding creativity, this only served to sharpen his own thinking. All opposing opinions held value even if they were proven wrong.
He gathered the insights needed to challenge the status quo and lead progressive movements by considering an array of ideas. By bearing in mind all perspectives, adapting ideas, and reaching some sort of consensus he produced what was needed to positively shape the country and win.
Relating it back to current day business, here are a few ways companies can develop a strong culture, built on core values, while still welcoming dissent.
1. Encourage employees to look for problems and present criticism
2. Unearth natural devil advocates and ask people who genuinely hold minority opinions to speak up in meetings.
3. Invite employees from different functions, as well as varying levels of the business, to pitch new ideas.
Keep in mind, the environment created by leaders must remain positive and company core values must remain prevalent. The desired outcome on any of the above ideas is to foster cohesion while keeping a healthy amount of differing experiences, personalities and ideas. This will allow your business to hold true to core values while encouraging the progress needed for the growth of your business.
If you agree with this dichotomy, maybe the answer is hiring for cultural contribution in addition to cultural fit.