Sure, but it's a "pick two" problem. Culture, Growth, Profit. Startups bleed money to create a culture (entitlements, informal benefits, etc) that attracts talent and generates very high growth percentages. When a company gets big enough it can either give up the culture in order to turn a profit while growing or give up the high growth rate to maintain its soul. The latter become those stable, durable companies that'll last a hundred years but never make pop investors jizz their pants. The former have the chance to become mega-corporations.
There is of course the third category like Google whose solution was to stratify into a caste system where your core employees maintain some of that original culture while most of your employees are contractors you treat like shit.
My 2c is that these transitions aren't about giving up culture, they're about changing to a different culture.
There are companies that make a lot of money and grow both organically and via acquisitions where people have a well-defined culture that attracts top talent... But it's a different kind of talent, it's the talent that enjoys building a lean, mean, money-making machine.
Historically, ITT was one of those companies during the Age of Conglomerates. Later on, IBM and Xerox come to mind. I recall that during the 80s and 90s having worked in management or sales for Xerox was a golden ticket to almost any job you wanted. Same with working in finance for GE.
What about working in management at Disney today? What about working in leadership with Apple or Amazon today? These are very well run companies with a strong management culture, growth, and profits. And investors love them.
My 2c is that these transitions aren't about giving up culture, they're about changing to a different culture.
That's a distinction without a difference.
it's the talent that enjoys building a lean, mean, money-making machine.
Precisely. You start a company as a problem-solving customer-pleasing machine and it becomes a money-making customer-exploiting machine. The ideal world for the MBA is one in which your customers hate you just not enough to stop paying you.
Curious, are there good examples of companies that were able to delay the "pick 2" problem for a long time?
Im assuming such company would need to be a dividend-paying machine bc otherwise the profits would go into retained earnings (vs staff growth or R&D expense, etc) and that would make investors really unhappy.
There is of course the third category like Google whose solution was to stratify into a caste system where your core employees maintain some of that original culture while most of your employees are contractors you treat like shit.