Source: Being a Digital/Analog Leader

Let’s start with a quote I feel summarizes this article:

“I say this because I hear how technology can be dehumanizing — like the exasperating interaction you get with a phone tree when calling up your insurance agent. And I hear how technology makes our lives more fulfilling — for a CEO who wouldn’t be able to attend his daughter’s soccer game if it weren’t for their mobile phone/office. My only conclusion is that we are coming to terms with the hybrid lifestyle we’ve chosen with technology.”

This contains everything I identify with that relates to technology.  Does it invade my life?  Does it make me less personal?  Does it help me connect more? Does it free time?  I’ve asked these questions and had conversations with friends and family about this numerous time, but only recently realized that the development of technology has been a reaction/solution to a changing culture just as much as it has driven that culture change.

We can stop arguing about whether this is good or bad.  Culture has shifted from 40 hour work weeks and separate work and life portions to 60-70 hour work weeks and a constant work/life blend.  Being quite young I can’t say what changed what, but I know that in many instances I have only implemented technology to solve a problem caused by work invading home or life getting in the way of work.

Example

Freshly out of college I took a job working as a web designer for a group of radio stations. The Friday before Easter I accidentally (and embarrassingly) erased three months of work including a large project that was supposed to launch the next week.  If I was on a 40 hour schedule and work/life separation I could have argued with merit that it was what it was (back ups weren’t being done like they should have by IT) and that a single errant keystroke was no reason to come in on the weekend.  Business culture dictated that I needed to do what I had to do to get it done. Thankfully I was able to implement a VPN solution and work from home and merge that with time with my family.  In this case the VPN solution didn’t cause me to start working from home it allowed me to meet the demands of work while still maintaining some of my holiday.

This argument sounds eerily similar to the quote above, but what I find wrong with how people view technology’s force on our life. People act like technology is controlling culture and then our actions, but in equal portion culture controls our actions and we implement technology to try and retain our humanity. It is time we stop acting like we don’t control our lives, our boundaries and our future and start saying “Just because technology allows me to do something, doesn’t mean I always have to bend that way.”  Maeda’s assessment of the current cultural situation is correct I just think the assimilator isn’t as much technology as it is business.

Once again I am reminded that I need more sleep.  I can’t even sleep enough let alone get a nap.

A TED Talk by Dan Ariely that I found on Trizle. How often do you think this happens to us?  How often are we slanted in one direction or another by information design?

1. Take a period of time (maybe while you do mindless work at your job) and ingest as much information as you can (maybe podcasts) on a topic.

2. THEN give yourself some time to record whatever comes out of your brain.

3. Save what you record.

4. Revisit it.

5. Repeat

3. Company Culture Is A Big Fat Lie

I am not saying that companies don’t have culture, merely that whenever someone tells you what the company culture is laugh at them.  Here’s the definition of culture:

” the quality in a person or society that arises from a concern for what is regarded as excellent in arts, letters, manners, scholarly pursuits, etc.” or

“the behaviors and beliefs characteristic of a particular social, ethnic, or age group: the youth culture; the drug culture.”

- dictionary.com

Let’s say I am in an interview (second only to sales meetings when talking about culture) and the interview says our company culture is x, y, and most importantly z.  Should I assume they are lying?  No, but in my experience what this person is describing is (1) what someone told them the goals of the company are OR (2)how they interact with their closest coworkers.  Neither of those matter to you.  Why?  Because as each new employee is added the company culture changes, so the chances of (1) still being right depend on how long and how many employees the company has hired. (2) could be more applicable if the person interviewing you is someone you will be working with quite a bit, but often times it is a out of the loop manager or an HR person.  Neither of those will have a good understanding of the culture of work that you will experience on a day to day basis.

My Experience
Just a few insights from my work experiences.

Small Company:
The company culture was fairly dead on to what the person who interviewed me (owner) said it was, except he made crazy, upbeat, and fast paced sound like positive things.  He also said that they were all friends.  Too bad nobody ever told him the employees were convinced he didn’t understand business and would never ‘get’ them.  In a small company there will definitely be a strong culture. Most likely the dependence on each other makes trust very important and the value and well being of coworkers is important.  This creates a sort of family atmosphere.  Just be aware of the fact that most ‘normal’ families have their secrets.

Medium Company:
The medium company I worked for talked about their ‘culture’ the most of any employer I have had.  On the surface(company outings, trade shows, etc.) they did a great job playing the part, but in the board room decisions were made that often seemed contradictory to the culture.  I have to say that overall this company was the most enjoyable and had the best cultural fit with me although it wasn’t exactly what I was told in the interview.

Large Companies:
Both large companies that I have worked for really didn’t have a discernible culture.  The large companies were also the ones who pushed their ‘cool culture’ on me the most during interviews.  Instead on a day to day basis these large companies are seemed more like large robotic creatures of which I was a tiny cog.  Personalities didn’t show much. Goals and values weren’t apparent.

Summary:
In terms of culture it is hard for a large company to have a single one.  With so many different people and so many different professions and interests having a single culture that is distinguishable is difficult.  If working for a company with a good work culture is important I would make an effort to meet the people you will be working with prior to starting work.  During an interview I think it is perfectly appropriate to ask the interviewer if you can meet the team you will be working with.  You certainly won’t get the whole picture, but it might give you a better idea of what day to day work will be like. 

In general when looking at what type of company to work for I would disregard size. After having worked at all different sizes of companies in multiple industries I have noticed that size is not near as important as your close coworkers and the work that you will do.  Make an effort to understand both of these before accepting any offer.  Ask for specifics during your interview. What projects will I work on? Can I see an example of previous work?  Who will I work with?  Where can I grow without having to move positions?  Remember, even in a down economy, the interview is for you as much as it is for the hiring company.

Cultural change defines the type of place you want to works, but not how companies work… in the short term.

Briefly here is a summary of the work culture change I see being demanded:

• Job seekers want access to technology (whether social media or cellphones) not as a luxury, but as a tool.
• People want flexibility both with time and location.
• Young workers want to have constant visibility of how they fit into and help achieve the company vision/mission.
• New job seekers are looking for an environment where they can constantly learn and grow

SUMMARY: There is a culture shift for employees to have the ability to help the company anytime, anywhere, anyway.  “Give me the tools and reap the rewards.” This seems to be a stark contrast to the 9-5, office building, work compartmentalization mentality from other generations.

The point of this article is not to define the change, so I won’t go further, but wanted to point out the change I see in order to compare the different places I have worked or worked with.

Small Companies:
Most see the value in being connected at both from the employee and management perspectives.  Employees like the flexibility and managers like the constant availability and rapid response of employees.  In the small company I worked at flexibility was implemented and encouraged, but due to budget constraints that I assume are common in small companies not everyone was given new phones and technology.  However, access to social networking and use of online tools was not filtered whatsoever.

Medium Companies:
The medium company I worked at had a decent amount of flexibility in terms of time and location. Technology was open and available. I regularly had conversations with clients and coworkers late in the evening, at bars, at libraries, or early in the morning at omelette shops.

Large Companies:
Large companies stand out to me as the ones that fit their mold more than any.  At both of the large companies I worked at, flexibility of both time and location was looked at as a privilege earned over time, not as a productivity tool.  Workers that wanted this had to swim upstream for quite some time to get it.  Technology was also limited.  Neither company widely provided cell phones for employees (at least at the entry level) and both had restrictive filters on internet use.

CONCLUSION:
Change takes infinitely more time at a large company than a small company.  Young employees bring with them the culture they have grown up in and then either effectively push change up or change when they are put in position to make decisions.  I would argue that large companies will resist change especially when a young employee is asking for something that older employees see as a benefit that they had to work for.  It often does not matter if this request could improve productivity.

On a side note, I think that the acceptance of cultural change may be more dependent on age of the company rather than size.  In general though if you are looking for a company that works in the newest style I would suggest looking at a small and young company.

Question full of sarcasm: But what if I don’t feel like doing anything? How long can I be happy for?

I’ve been looking for mentors. I’ve taught classes.  I’ve also worked in an environment with heavy peer engagement. The place I learned the most was in an environment of peers that all had a thirst for knowledge.  What one learns everyone learns and with 5-10 people focusing on learning…well learning abounds.

In the four years since I graduated I have worked at two of the worlds largest companies (7500+ employees), a medium sized (~250 employees) company that thought they were small, a small design firm ( < 10 employees) and owned my own business.  I’ve noticed a few patterns that might be of interest to those of you sporting offers right now.

1. In terms of what you will do at the company, size does not matter.
2. There has been a cultural shift in where people want to work, but a big company is still big.
3. Your direct contacts are really the only culture that matters. “Company Culture” is a big fat lie.

I’ll break it down into three articles.  Today we’ll talk about size.

Size does not matter.
Maybe I was just mis-un-edumacated, but I was told that big companies would offer more room for advancement, but that I would probably be stuck with a smaller variety of tasks under my control.  I call BS. Here is what I have seen:

Opportunity for advancement:

• The bigger the company, the older the middle management. At big company number one the sales managers probably averaged 40-45 years old.  In the medium company and one of its sister companies the sales managers were probably a full ten years younger on average.  Is turn over an issue? Does the middle management from small companies move on to be middle or upper management at large companies?  That could be an explanation.  Still, if you want to be management at a large company my observations seem to say start a small company and work your way into a position where you can leave for a large company.
• The larger company had more middle management. If you start at a small company with only a few managers you run the risk of them being completely satisfied and never moving on.  One or two of these could seriously plug your pipe to the top.  At a larger company although the competition may be higher the open positions should be more regular.  Again, this is just my observation.
• Small companies have no middle management. If you want to jump on board and get used to making decisions you could start your own business.  Assuming you do well, this success could allow you to move on as a manager or executive at a larger company.  The dangerous assumption here is that you are going to do well.  Make sure you are ready.  As good as things have gone with my company, they aren’t as fast as I would have liked.

Variety of job description:

• The smallest company(besides my own business where I do everything) I worked at started me with the most limited job description that I have seen.  I am not sure that this was due to size.  I think instead it was due to management.  The management at this company didn’t understand the processes of the workers and therefore segmented work that could have had a broader flow.  Also the scope of what this company in its entirety did was very small.
• I think that companies that are struggling financially will have opportunity to expand what you do.  The first large company that I was working for was in the beginning of an industry decline when I started there.  The result?  If I wanted to go above and beyond in any area I was more than welcome to add value.  Once I proved that this was valuable it would often be added to my job description (at least informally). Knowing how to demonstrate added value is a great way to add task variety.
• Your task variety can move horizontally or vertically. Decide which way you want it to move and look for indicators. At the small company as we demonstrated competency in an area we were often allowed to grow vertically by managing those areas(web design —> managing the design process —> managing the operations of the design team).  In the medium company vertical growth existed to an extent, but more often because of the office culture other related tasks were added.  This growth and a slow creep of the job description was more horizontal (Web editing —> Web design —> Interactive design —> Media production —> Photo/Video shoots).  In my experience the vertical growth increase my competency around a certain topic, where as the horizontal growth made me a jack of all trades.  When you interview for a position ask about opportunities to grow and learn within the position.

One thing that I have noticed in larger companies is an older sense of management.  In both large companies this were done more compartmentalized and went through their channels. For promotions, tenure was often more highly regarded whereas in smaller companies it seemed the talent level was taken into account over tenure.  I would say this is because it is easier to look busy in a large company and harder to watch each individual to identify talents.  Also, change was harder to implement. Both qualifications for advancement and speed of change are things that you will want to consider as they will affect your opportunity for advancement and your job variety.