That's probably true, but "it's okay to have a corporate culture that a few people like intensely at the expense of other people disliking it, so long as the few people are enough people for the business to operate," is a lesson in itself. That is one reason why it's good for there to be more than one business in the economy. :)
Exactly. Great cultures are different and not everyone is a great fit for every culture. That’s OK!
There are people who are very happy at a well-run BigCo, with a well-defined cadence for making decisions. Others chafe at that level of process, and instead thrive at an entrepreneurial startup. (This of course is a gross generalization.)
A culture that has generic values is in some ways meaningless.
>A culture that has generic values is in some ways meaningless.
That seems true the way you put it, but there are some cultures that are legitimately insane and awful. "Generic values," usually meaning a secular average of the ambient culture in the geographic locale of the office, can be a whole lot better than some other options. "Generic values," are actually quite distinct, for example they will be different between New York and Boise, or different between 2001, 2019, and 1974.
This is also why he emphasized self-selection by paying generous (for service sector) severance bonuses and encouraged people to take it early on if they didn't think they were a fit.
It is a higher-order concern. Ethics trumps culture and strategy. It certainly seems plausible the "good ole boys club" style of corporate management can be be effective. Diverse voices have benefits, especially in not being blinded to many aspects of the market, but nevertheless homogeneity has some efficiencies. Yet, it is just plain wrong in most cases, independent of relevant benefits.
