
Organizational Blueprints for Success in High-Tech Startups (2002) [pdf] - baxtr
https://cmr.berkeley.edu/documents/sample_articles/2002_44_3_4776.pdf
======
thinkingkong
Ive used this as a reference and passed it around my manager leaning
engineering circles. Its really good as a basis for a conversation. The major
takeaways for me are

1\. Culture has to be an explicit decision

2\. Changing culture is incredibly difficult. Emphasis on incredibly.

Chances are you wont be able to build a stars culture, but lots of companies
use that as their implied cultural northstar and fail at it.

~~~
zwaps
This also relates to organizational fit. The so called "contigency theory" has
long said that the optimal organization depends on context.

Sadly, this context was usually defined to be outside of the firm. The area of
"internal context" is a current area of research. The SPEC project has been
very useful in this regard.

------
neilv
One thing unclear to me from this paper is on what sources of information did
they classify the orgs by model -- was it only by founder and executive
claims, or were there other sources? (Simple example: when an executive claims
the Star model, was the top-salary component of that checked against available
industry salary info?)

Why this question came to mind, while I was reading and then skimming: some of
these models we see claimed as attractions for recruiting and PR purposes, yet
industry chatter often suggests that, say, a company that's been claiming the
glamorous Star is maybe more the less-glamorous Bureaucracy or Autocracy.

