> I think you're inadvertently proving my point, though
I don't think so.
> And while you can have those kinds of relationships in a company that's composed of 5 people, it's really hard to do that in a company of 5000.
I think you took my comparison too literally. The comparison was meant to highlight that people who share culture have less process. In a company of 5000, it's harder to have a mono-culture, but the closer you can get to that then the less "process" there is.
> The comparison was meant to highlight that people who share culture have less process.
Yeah, I guess I’ll need a different example to really believe you. I think if cultivating relationships aren't a possibility (and they aren't, logistically, in large enough companies), we naturally (and justifiably) result to explicit processes in order to accomplish things between different groups of people. I don't think culture has anything to do with it.
> I don't think culture has anything to do with it.
Yah, I guess this is where we're missing each other. See, I believe that if you put 2 west coast americans in a room, their morals, likes/dislikes, and goals are more likely to naturally align than by putting in some odd mix of countries with clashing cultures.
I don't think so.
> And while you can have those kinds of relationships in a company that's composed of 5 people, it's really hard to do that in a company of 5000.
I think you took my comparison too literally. The comparison was meant to highlight that people who share culture have less process. In a company of 5000, it's harder to have a mono-culture, but the closer you can get to that then the less "process" there is.