I attended a virtual networking event the other day. This is a relatively new organization for me and one that I’ve found fascinating.  I appreciate their events because they’re so unlike anything else I do during the day.  People that don’t look like me, talking about things I don’t understand with great fervor. It’s great. 

As the COVID-driven shut-down has progressed, more and more organizations are trying to get back to ‘normal.’  This particular organization shifted their programming calendar online pretty quickly, asking their speakers to come to a studio and present to a virtual audience (and a camera guy).  They did a good job pivoting so quickly.  There was high production value and the editorial was thoughtful given the circumstances. 

As the months progressed, the emcee noted that the sense of community felt missing so they shifted their approach from high production value to more low fidelity digital engagement as best they could.  I participated in several breakout sessions, each introducing me to a different subset of people.  Yet as I got further down the rabbit hole with these folks, the more I realized that this organization, like all organizations, is the average of the people that make it up.  See, in the small groups, the people got weird. My perspective of the discussion shifted from ‘what a fascinating way to look at this problem’ to ‘that wasn’t interesting, that was offensive.’ Most participants were on zoom from their home ‘office’ or kitchen table or even couch, yet one man and his wife zoomed in from the edge of their bed, still wearing their PJs having quite literally just woken up for this event.   

This was a group of ‘creatives.’ I like being creative and creative people fascinate me, but evidently to be a ‘Creative,’ means to create some form of art for a living and hold a fringe opinion.  In this group, there are a few core opinions that must be aligned (e.g., processes are to be broken and small batch coffee is the only coffee worth drinking), yet other opinions are up for discussion (e.g., which was the greatest avant-garde album of 1982), so one’s rebuttal must include 3 facts, 2 opinions and 1 contrarian view in order to be respected.

The emcee, I figured out, was the polished, inoffensive version of the group.  He had the ability to represent the fringes while holding to his script.  He had been a Creative for some time and had abstract art on his wall, so he had street cred with the in-group, choosing language to connect with those in the out-group.  It was well done.  

I’ve seen this again and again.  I attended an event once co-sponsored by an Ivy League alumni group and a group of entrepreneurs.  It didn’t take an anthropologist to discern who belonged to which group based on attire and conversational opening question.  

Organizations of any shape and size are driven by their culture.  These cultures are dynamic, yet the bigger and older they get the more static they become.  A culture is the average of the fringes in the group. The spread of fringe has a wider tolerance in the group of Creatives than it does in the group of Ivy League alumni.  This works because the entry process to the alumni association selects out the fringes, while the Creatives lower the bar as wide as possible.  Neither is wrong and both are fit for purpose, but this is how averages work.  A wide, shallow spread produce and average as does a deep, narrow spread. 

The composite of the bounds of tolerance give organizations culture.