Alternatives

Performance Driven Organisation:

A common way to improve company culture is by implementing a performance driven
model. On paper it may seem like a bad idea, however, there are companies thriving who
practice this approach to build culture, and establishes that, under the right circumstances, people
can adapt well to a competitive environment.
A performance driven culture is one where employees are rewarded for outstanding
performance and underperforming employees are aided to perform better. This can lead to
competitive environments where all want to be acknowledged, and any underperformance is seen
as a failure as opposed to an opportunity for development. Patty Mccord, former head of netflix:
“saw first-hand how companies can become slow and complacent and employees become
cynics and whiners. She spent 14 years at Netflix experimenting with new ways to work.
Making the Netflix culture deck become reality for the people who work there…Patty
believes people come to work as fully formed adults with a desire to make an impact and
be proud of what they do and she’s on a mission to spread the word that we can do this
differently” (McCord 2018)
Netflix is a company famed for practicing this culture and they are doing quite well, although
there are pros and cons that come with having this culture. One includes the challenge of hiring
the right people who seek a competitive environment; hiring the wrong person could lead to
them feeling the pressure of the competitive culture, leading to fear and stress, preventing them
from staying hence reducing employee retention, so the hiring process has to be very specific to
hire the right people.
A competitive environment, however, can also lead to very high productivity, and maybe
even creativity. Having employees who push themselves to be the best they can could lead to a
very efficient work process for the company as a whole, not only the employee. In order to
achieve this, the leaders will need to have a clear understanding of the employees and their limits
in order to push them, but not work them beyond what they can do.
 This type of culture must also nurture the underperformers, employees who can do better
and are willing to improve, this will make the company not just a place to work, but a place to
grow, and even if the employee leaves the company, they will have grown as a developer and an
employee. However, an underperformer who is unwilling to change will have to be let go in
order to better the company, and if not done properly, can lead to a very negative outview of the
company possibly being bias, fear driven, and overly competitive.
A performance driven company, when done right, can build a very good corporate culture
that works efficiently. Employees become satisfied and self actualized, and grow over their
course of employment. When done wrong, it can lead to a negative outlook on the company,
dissatisfied employees, a culture of stress and fear, and failure to retain talent. If a start-up seeks
to employ this culture, they must know what type of people they hire and have the right attitude
and accommodation to maintain this culture.

High-Performance Organisation:
A common theme found in many companies with good company culture is having an
environment that will help the firm’s employees perform and flourish. By running a
high-performance organisation, where an organisation “consistently achieves excellence while
creating a high-quality work environment,” a company can ensure that their employees are taken
care of in all aspects of their lives so that they may perform at the highest levels (Schermerhorn
2014).
An example of a high-performance organisation is the company Google. Craig
Nevill-Manning, Google’s engineering director in Manhattan explains the philosophy behind it
all; he says “Google’s success depends on innovation and collaboration. Everything we did was
geared toward making it easy to talk. Being on one floor here removed psychological barriers to
interacting” (Stewart 2013). The physical layout of the firm in New York is open and free,
allowing no barriers between interaction. The employees have scooters to travel across the room
and are all equal, no matter the level of leadership an employee has. Ben Waber, who has a Ph.D.
from M.I.T., assesses Google’s workplace interactions. Waber explains how the company’s:
“physical space is the biggest lever to encourage collaboration. And the data are clear that
 the biggest driver of performance in complex industries like software is serendipitous
interaction. For this to happen, you also need to shape a community. That means if you’re
stressed, there’s someone to help, to take up the slack. If you’re surrounded by friends,
you’re happier, you’re more loyal, you’re more productive. Google looks at this
holistically. It’s the antithesis of the old factory model, where people were just cogs in a
machine” (Stewart 2013)
By creating a fun and comfortable culture through environment, employee interaction and
collaboration increases, as well as the drive to complete work to a high degree. All of an
employee’s needs are taken care of so that they may focus on their work, with the end result
being employees who produce more because they enjoy where they work.
Although the attraction of this workplace environment does require a more rigorous
hiring process. As more and more people want to work at a company with a fun and comfortable
environment, only those who prove to possess the qualities any given company is looking for
will succeed in obtaining employment. Despite the need for the rigorous hiring process, having a
high-performance organisation ensures employee productivity is effective. By guaranteeing
employee happiness, a company is investing in the pieces that help them function and go beyond
the goals they set.

Value Driven Organisation:

In the process of creating a new company, an organisation will typically create a set of
core values for the company which they follow and endorse. The specific environment, which
includes “the people and groups with whom an organisation interacts” (Shermerhorn 2014). By
building a culture that embodies the companies core values, a sense of purpose and fulfillment is
created in employees who agree with the companies values. By creating and enforcing these
values early on, it creates brand ambassadors out of employees, which builds positive brand
image and attracts like minded individuals to work for the company.
In a study examining “exceptional companies … to see what accounts for their success,”
Merck & Company is considered and the study says:
 “Decades before “values statements” became popular, George Merck II said, ‘[We] are
workers in industry who are genuinely inspired by the ideals of advancement of medical
science, and of service to humanity.’ Former Merck CEO P. Roy Vagelos echoed the
ideals years later: ‘Above all, let’s remember that our business success means victory
against disease and help to mankind. Such statements are part of Merck’s core ideology
— the values and sense of purpose that go beyond just making money’” (Collins 2005)
With the creation of strong core values, which are echoed over thirty years later, the company
succeeds in their mission to help mankind. The CEO of Zappos, Tony Hsieh, agrees with the
creation, and enforcement, of strong values early on in the creation of the company. Christopher
quotes Hsieh saying, ​“if I could go back and do Zappos all over again I would actually come up
with our values from day one. We actually didn't always have values. It wasn't until about five
years into it that we rolled out our values” (2017). ​No matter the business, the strategy and
tactics, operations, culture, and products must change over time, however, the core values should
never change.
Nonetheless, the creation and maintenance of core values is no easy feat. When setting
values, it must come within through introspection. Otherwise, core values will be insincere and a
liability for perceived violation. Enron is an example of such a failure; Enron’s values were
“communication, respect, Integrity, excellence”​ (Enron 2001)​, yet Enron is synonymous with the
financial scandal leading to the companies bankruptcy. Patrick M. Lencioni from the Harvard
Business Review explains “​empty values statements create cynical and dispirited employees,
alienate customers, and undermine managerial credibility” (Lencioni 2002). Misuse of core
values is corrosive to corporate culture, deteriorating employees trust in the companies direction.
With meaningful values comes limitations; values can limit a company's customers, employees,
strategies, and practices.

Open and Flexible Organisation:

Any given organisation will most likely have a different management structure in order to
best achieve their goals. One approach that benefits a company’s culture is providing employees
with leadership and ownership opportunities. ​Forbes​ addresses leadership with employees and
states:
“being a manager isn’t all about you—it’s important to instill leadership skills in your
employees for the good of their careers, too. When they’re equipped with management
skills, they’ll be able to make informed decisions, guide their peers (and eventually their
direct reports), and be better qualified for opportunities that come their way” (The Muse
2013)
This concept allows the potential to foster growth of the company's culture in a way that allows
employees to feel that they have meaningful impact on the company.
A flat organisational structure foregoes the classic hierarchical, or tall, structure for a
more simple structure that reduces the levels of management, has a wide span of control to
promote faster reaction and speed up internal processes (Schermerhorn 2014). This allows
employees to take on more responsibility and have their opinions heard within the organisation:
“When employees feel their voices are not being heard, or they are not involved in the
decision making process, they are likely to stop caring. Many of them will decide to do
just what they are told, instead of taking active roles in coming up with new ideas to help
their companies grow. When that happens, work becomes a chore. And people refuse to
contribute because they don't have the support of their managers and superiors” (Oppong
2016)
Since there is no formal management applied in a flat organisation to regulate the power, the
power ultimately is spread out; the employees feel as though they do not always need to follow
practices that could potentially limit their innovation. As well, the speed of communication for
the decision-making processes becomes fast as any proposals do not need to go through as many
levels of management, which increases productivity.
Elimination of supporting levels of management allows the managers of small teams to
take responsibility for all decisions made by their team. The lack of formal management to
support decision making within the organisation may lead to managers feeling overworked by
the amount of their responsibility, causing a decline in productivity and quality of work.
Furthermore, the ambiguous management structure may cause conflicts when determining who is
more specialised over certain business operations. As the size of a company grows, the amount
of ad hoc responsibilities creates more conflicts when determining authority, making it harder to
maintain an enjoyable and collaborative environment.
Participative leadership “is a managerial style that invites input from employees on all
company decisions” and can benefit workplace culture by creating an environment where the
employees have their voices heard (Root 2018). This view is favorable to candidates seeking to
innovate and take ownership of their work. Argyris’s theory of adult personality states the
employee should have more control and responsibility over their work (Schermerhorn 2014).
Based on Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, employees lead by a more inviting manager provides an
opportunity for self-actualization. This then means there is a possibility for a better relationship
between employee and manager, allowing for a lower turnover, higher moral, less alienation
within the organisation, and more responsibility given to employees.
Alternately, employees may have varying opinions at once, causing confusion when
decisions must be made. This can cause an issue, as each personal opinion of the staff does not
necessarily align with the company goals; with a vast amount of differing opinions the
decision-making process slows down, meaning objectives may not be met and the organisation’s
effectiveness would decrease.
Opportunity for a company to acquire and retain tech talent by having a culture created
through flat organisation helps satisfy the employees’ needs for belonging, gives value to the
employees opinions provides a sense of achievement with each employees’ rise in
responsibilities, and allows self-actualization. Employees feel they have better meaning and
understanding of their potential as a result of their increased involvement in the organisation.
The ownership and responsibilities the employees obtain in this structure attracts talent who want
to innovate while being self-actualized. Avoiding formality, however, can lead to employees
taking advantage of the freedom given negatively impacting efficiency. Striking a balance is key
when implementing ad hoc authority to mitigate the lack of formal procedures.