These stories sometimes make their way into the media, where I often take a closer look just in case there are clues to help me better understand the phenomenon. The most recent public example that came to my attention was the story about the toxic culture at the Reply All podcast, which Spotify acquired as part of its $230 million deal for Gimlet Media. Based on the timeline I can pull together from this article, the issue of the workplace dynamic at Gimlet was a concern prior to the sale. Again, I have to wonder - if a company was building up its value with an eye on an eventual acquisition, surely it would make the most sense to build a strong culture? In addition to the productivity benefits, the strength of the culture might make for another selling point to attract a potential buyer.
Luckily for Gimlet, even though Spotify seemed to know about the problems it chose to proceed with the purchase. Now, I admit that there is no way I could know this for certain, just as there is no way I could know for certain that the employees at Gimlet would have all agreed in principle about their desire for a positive culture, but I'm comfortable making the assumption that Spotify would do its due diligence before agreeing to a $230 million outlay. This makes sense to me - I've seen friends scour Yelp for forty-five minutes researching lunch, so what I'm saying is that you would do a lot of work to ensure the success of any matter concerning $230 million. Reply All, one of Spotify's biggest podcasts according to the above linked article, is currently on indefinite hiatus while addressing its culture, so if there was a problem of this magnitude at the time of the acquisition then surely those vetting Gimlet would have known all about it.
But it's occurring to me now that perhaps my earlier confusion was misplaced - if a company like Gimlet can have its internal problems yet still command top dollar on the open market, then surely the message for every other startup is to focus on the things that build the valuation while leaving the other stuff - like culture - for later, for after the acquisition, for another company. There has never been, to my knowledge, a company acquired for a huge sum on the basis of its great culture alone. I have no doubt that everyone who claims to value culture is sincere, but the answer is often presented in an unrealistic vacuum, where the question poses a ridiculous choice - do you prefer a strong culture or a weak one? Who would say the latter? In the real world, culture is one among many variables, so maybe the question should be - how much money would you take to relegate culture to the bottom of your priority list? What I'm saying is that it's a toxic culture when an organization's leaders know there is a $230 million incentive to ignore their employees' concerns.
