Accepting the culture shock between a start-up and a large group

If we define the culture of a social group by all of its values, intellectual references and behaviors that it shares, it is not an exaggeration to talk about a clash of cultures between large groups and start-ups. A divide that is first and foremost embodied at the level of teams. When start-ups recruit profiles attracted by the promise of an adventure, large groups generally appeal to personalities looking for a career and a reassuring environment. It is not a question of human or professional value, but of the type of personalities.

Then, we find this gap again in decision-making processes : start-ups are characterized by their agility, with reduced management and short decision-making circuits. On the other hand, large groups, constrained by their size, a dispersion of responsibilities and cumbersome validation processes, often have difficulty deciding. And when the management of start-ups, initially guided by the desire to move ever faster, assumes its frankness without complex, the mode of communication of the teams of large groups will be much more political, at the expense of action.

Finally, less concerned with regulatory constraints than large groups, start-ups are built in a cultural way around a innovation designed to satisfy the customer. While the regulatory obligations of large groups are so heavy that they sometimes prevent them from going in the direction of their customers!

Positive confrontation

Culture shock is therefore inevitable, and represents a challenge when the two types of structures come together. Contrary to what one might imagine, this shock does not only have negative effects; on the contrary, it is sometimes sought by large groups in this type of partnership. Recognizing the constraints inherent to their organization and size, they come to find in start-ups a capacity for innovation and an agility that they no longer have. And the confrontation with the practices of young innovative companies allows them to extend their perception of the field of possibilities,enrich their thinking and to shake up — or even transgress — their age-old methods. For start-ups, this clash of cultures is all the stronger because the founders have often built a company that resembles them. Their culture is their identity, it is strong, sometimes divisive, It is a precious asset.

That is why it is only acceptable under certain conditions. On the one hand both parties need to be clear about the importance of the issue, aligned with the management of this problem and the top management of the large group must be personally committed to transcending this difference. On the other hand It is essential that the large group ensures the autonomy of the start-up so as not to suffocate him.

This is all the more essential because it is there, in this culture that it has been able to forge and maintain, that the real added value of the start-up lies...

‍

By: