Brilliant. I like the "misfits" twist on this - its a list of non-negotiables for a team. One add-on is to recruit new talent from you A+ / higher performers because in life we choose our friends based on shared values. Therefore, A+ players tend to hang out with A+ players.
I'll offer you an official diploma from the Esteemed MBA next time I see you.
Paul, this is brilliant and true. But I also think this is rigged game in part. Because culture starts from the top, the founders, the leadership teams. And if we are the ones picking out the values we assess as being suitable from among our top people, we select them through our own tinted lens. And sometimes we lack self awareness. Say there’s one founder or C-level who’s very risk averse…they will favor diligence as a value more than courage. So what I’ve seen happening is that values which align most with the ones leaders already have get picked and, even worse, people start modelling (unconsciously even) the values of the senior team from the start, making the selection very muddled.
Great point. One way to possibly avoid that is to find common values within the leadership team - there are usually are 3-5 common core values within a group of A+ people like that, which would push out outliers held to just one executive. If "risk averse" is consistent across the leadership team....it may be a core value.
I see that…I guess what I was driving at is what to do if you find the shared values are not supportive of the specific type of company…risk adverse is fine for pharma companies but not for tech startups in a non-mission critical field.
Well, my gut response is to embrace it and define it for your specific company / situation. Using "risk adverse" as an example - if the leadership team collectively shares "risk adverse" as a core value - a leopard can't change it spots. At the same time, these risk averse people found success at a tech company, so how does being risk averse apply? How can they define it to make sense for their business?
Could risk averse be "pushing bad code" or "cutting corners for sake of growth" or "accepting good money from bad investors"?
The value can have many different meanings. I like to ask a group of people to define "helicopter" and you'll actually get a bunch of different definitions for such a simple word. So, make it yours by defining it how you mean it.
Brilliant. I like the "misfits" twist on this - its a list of non-negotiables for a team. One add-on is to recruit new talent from you A+ / higher performers because in life we choose our friends based on shared values. Therefore, A+ players tend to hang out with A+ players.
I'll offer you an official diploma from the Esteemed MBA next time I see you.
Paul, this is brilliant and true. But I also think this is rigged game in part. Because culture starts from the top, the founders, the leadership teams. And if we are the ones picking out the values we assess as being suitable from among our top people, we select them through our own tinted lens. And sometimes we lack self awareness. Say there’s one founder or C-level who’s very risk averse…they will favor diligence as a value more than courage. So what I’ve seen happening is that values which align most with the ones leaders already have get picked and, even worse, people start modelling (unconsciously even) the values of the senior team from the start, making the selection very muddled.
Great point. One way to possibly avoid that is to find common values within the leadership team - there are usually are 3-5 common core values within a group of A+ people like that, which would push out outliers held to just one executive. If "risk averse" is consistent across the leadership team....it may be a core value.
I see that…I guess what I was driving at is what to do if you find the shared values are not supportive of the specific type of company…risk adverse is fine for pharma companies but not for tech startups in a non-mission critical field.
Well, my gut response is to embrace it and define it for your specific company / situation. Using "risk adverse" as an example - if the leadership team collectively shares "risk adverse" as a core value - a leopard can't change it spots. At the same time, these risk averse people found success at a tech company, so how does being risk averse apply? How can they define it to make sense for their business?
Could risk averse be "pushing bad code" or "cutting corners for sake of growth" or "accepting good money from bad investors"?
The value can have many different meanings. I like to ask a group of people to define "helicopter" and you'll actually get a bunch of different definitions for such a simple word. So, make it yours by defining it how you mean it.