Why Not Firm Youth Movements?

I’ve read a bit about cultural change both in corporations and in our larger macro cultures. And one thing I’ve noticed is that firm culture change less often involves youth movements. Yes, when there are larger cultural youth movements, that does influence behavior in firms. But we don’t so much see youth movements particular to specific firms. Why?

I see four main explanations. The first is that most corporations just don’t last very long. As business change is often enacted via old firms falling and new firms rising, there is less need for youth to visibly fight for change there. Youths can instead just switch to other firms, or wait for new firms to arise. Macro cultures, in contrast, will only change if folks push for change, and youths can be more sure to win eventually if they just wait til the old are gone.

A second explanation is that, compared to larger societies, the hierarchical nature of a firm more structures its communication and choices. So young people with ideas for change tend to privately persuade supervisors to adopt them, supervisors who then become the face of such changes. Both because youths have more access to firm leaders, and because they can face stronger retribution for visibly opposing leaders. In macro cultures, it is harder for youths to meet and persuade leaders to support changes. Plausibly firm leaders, compared to macro leaders, have stronger incentives to adopt changes even when they are hard or threaten prior leader investments.

A third explanation is that different cultural units use somewhat different status markers. In a firm, it is easier to demonstrate concrete achievement influencing firm success, achievement reflected in hierarchical position. We are less sure who contributed how much to a macro culture’s success, less confident that rank there reflects achievement, and so are more willing to listen to people with more indirect markers of quality, like education, articulation, popularity, and energy.

A fourth explanation is that art, intellect, and morality abilities are more influential re macro culture changes, and in those areas we more have a myth of the genius who is visible early in life via their impressive public opposition to the old. So in those areas of life org leaders and supporting personnel take backseats to the foregrounded youthful geniuses, who become leaders of youth movements.

Each of these explanations suggests a corresponding approach to reducing the influence of youth movements in our macro cultures. We could make it easier to switch macro-cultures, give macro leaders better incentives and make their contributions clearer, and deconstruct the myth of genius.