The ambivalent power of corporate culture

Lessons from Meta's AI problems

Introduction

In the race for supremacy in artificial intelligence, Meta sought to leap ahead by assembling an elite “AI Superteam.” Yet the strategy that promised dominance exposed a deeper weakness: a fragile corporate culture. In prioritising prestige over loyalty, the company undermined the very cohesion upon which sustainable innovation depends. This episode illustrates a timeless truth: culture eats strategy for breakfast.

What Went Wrong at Meta?

Meta’s aggressive hiring tactics created stark inequalities. New recruits enjoyed inflated salaries and privileged status in the “TBD Lab,” while long-standing engineers were left undervalued. Instead of inspiring unity, the rush for talent bred resentment. Edgar Schein reminds us that the only thing of real importance that leaders do is to create and manage culture^[1]. Meta’s approach, however, fractured rather than fostered culture.

Is There a General Pattern?

This case is not unique. Organisational theorists have long argued that cultural missteps derail even technically brilliant enterprises. Deal and Kennedy observed: The stronger the culture, the less need there is for policy manuals, organisation charts or detailed procedures^[2]. A weak or divided culture leads to fragmentation, bureaucratisation, and eventually, loss of morale. What happened at Meta resembles broader patterns seen in technology hype cycles.

What Could Meta Have Learned?

Literature on high-tech R&D emphasises balance between individual excellence and collective trust. Katzenbach and Smith stress that real teams hold themselves collectively accountable^[3]. Moreover, Teresa Amabile’s research on creativity shows that recognition and fair treatment matter as much as resources: When people feel that their work is valued and their contributions recognised, they are more likely to engage fully and creatively^[4]. In its haste to rival OpenAI, Meta overlooked these fundamentals.

Root Causes: AI or Beyond?

Are such failures specific to AI? In part, yes: AI is both a hype-driven field and one in which star researchers command unusual bargaining power. But the root causes reach further. They lie in leadership misjudgements and in misunderstanding the delicate balance between talent acquisition and cultural integration. As Kotter argues: Culture is powerful precisely because it operates outside of awareness^[5]. Meta’s leadership underestimated this invisible power.

Takeaway

Meta’s struggle is a cautionary tale. Money can buy talent, but money cannot buy trust. Sustainable innovation requires a culture where loyalty and institutional memory coexist with new energy and expertise. As companies chase breakthroughs in AI and beyond, they would do well to remember: only teams built on mutual trust and appreciation can translate brilliance into lasting achievement.

References

1. Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational Culture and Leadership (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. — Annotation: Classic text on how leaders shape and fracture corporate culture. ↩︎
   
   
2. Deal, T. E., & Kennedy, A. A. (2000). Corporate Cultures: The Rites and Rituals of Corporate Life. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books. — Annotation: Explains how strong cultures reduce friction and support performance. ↩︎
   
   
3. Katzenbach, J. R., & Smith, D. K. (1993). The Wisdom of Teams: Creating the High-Performance Organization. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. — Annotation: Foundational work on team dynamics and accountability. ↩︎
   
   
4. Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in Context. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. — Annotation: Research-based study showing the importance of recognition and fairness for creative output. ↩︎
   
   
5. Kotter, J. P. (2012). Leading Change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press. — Annotation: Discusses why cultural undercurrents shape outcomes more powerfully than formal strategies. ↩︎