Corporate culture in Russia: in search of the golden mean

Corporate culture, team building - these sonorous words, which have long been heard in modern business discourse, are gradually being established in our language. Together with them, one of the main ideas is getting accustomed: the internal life of the team, the relations that permeate it both horizontally and vertically, influence the results of work, which means that the management should not let them go by chance. From here all that we are used to associate with Western corporate structures - from joint visits to trainings to the morning collective singing of hymns. The idea behind all this is the same: by hook or by crook, to make an employee feel himself part of a single whole, more firmly “solder” him into a common mechanism.



On my own soil, all these postulates and valuable recommendations, according to my observations, take root frankly bad. Whether the recent past is pressing, or whether the Russians are really more closed by nature - in a word, one could have a long talk about the mentality and the mysterious Russian soul. However, let us leave this topic for other resources and just note: cheerful calls to see in each day an opportunity for self-improvement and to consider the working team a second family cause skeptical smiles or deaf irritation in the majority. And, since recently they have been sounding from all sides, the reaction force naturally works. Uncommunicability, which is generally widespread in the IT sphere, as a result of imposing an alien model of interaction on people from personal peculiarities turns into a principled position. "I was hired to do work, I do it, everything else does not concern me." And Western experts, as it turns out, are still right: such a position does not really reflect on teamwork.



The answer to the naturally emerging question, “So what to do?” Is fairly obvious: look for a middle ground. Somewhere there should be that border that separates the measures to debug teamwork from what will be perceived as a frank invasion of personal space. It is also obvious that this side is mobile: in different teams for a successful working process and overall comfort a different amount of communication is required. But we will not go deep in particular and try to define a universal lower limit. What are the minimum requirements that allow a team to be considered a team?

')

Guided by my own experience and leadership in teams of different sizes and directions, I answer this question like this:



Each member of the team should at least roughly represent what the others are doing.



Naturally, in large companies this rule applies within specific departments. Naturally, cheat sheets with job listings are optional, especially if we are talking about non-communicating areas, a superficial understanding is enough. But the general principle is as follows.



Why? For several reasons.



First, without this information, you do not have a complete picture of the workflow, even if you know what the formation stages of the product go through and what place your own labors take in this chain. The human factor cannot be disregarded: the very fact that how many hands the project will pass before and after your intervention will affect the deadlines and its final appearance. The latter, by the way, "individualists" often do not take into account. The isolation strategy “I am responsible only for my own results” is undermined by the simple fact that the results of the work of an employee do not always reach the evaluator in its pure form. The reality is that as long as your personal contribution to the cause is inseparable from the general, you are connected with the team, whether you like it or not. And of course, it’s wiser to track and control this connection than to pretend that it does not exist.



Secondly, it speeds up and simplifies the execution of tasks. Nowadays, coordination of all work processes, bringing them together, as a rule, is included in the tasks of specially trained people - project managers, team leaders and others like them, so at first glance, advice to bother yourself with other people's work may seem strange. But if you think about it, you come to the conclusion: extending the communicative chain by one link can be rational only in those cases when it initially has a complex structure. If you need a simple answer to a simple question from a colleague who sits in the next office, the introduction of an intermediary (who does not always, moreover, understands the essence of the matter) turns a trifling matter into a protracted game of a deaf phone. This is not beneficial to the company, which spends valuable man-hours, nor to you personally - the time and effort to communicate as much, and the effect is less than if you addressed the right employee directly. And if so, is it not better to make efforts to know who to contact in this or that case?



Thirdly ... but here we have to enter another foreign word - networking. Strictly speaking, what I am describing here is not, however, it can be said, is the first step to the beginning of the process. Networking is, in essence, the art of creating useful connections, and it always begins with the specification of the concept of "utility." Looking at the company as a mechanism whose structure and components are well known to you, you see in its entirety not only the workflow, but also the personnel structure and, accordingly, you can evaluate your place in it, prospects and alternatives. What are the positions in the company occupied by your profile specialists? Is there a migration between departments? Which posts have the most in common with what you do? Plotting career paths and taking concrete, targeted actions on them is much easier when you have such a detailed map in your head.



One could also mention about mutual responsibility and spontaneous cooperation, but these are already more subjective factors. The three theses listed above, in my opinion, demonstrate the validity of the basic principle that I derived as well as possible. I did not accidentally try to emphasize first of all the benefit of its observance for the employee himself - it’s easy to calculate the advantages for the manager. The combination of objective reciprocity and simplicity of implementation just make it a good litmus test to test the functionality of the team. This is the minimum that is necessary for any able-bodied team, regardless of the concept of the team that its members support; if it is not there, look around: most likely, there is no team as such. At least my experience is this. What do you say?