Organizations most definitely have their own cultures including codified practices, management frameworks, and a culture of "X." Patterns of behavior emerge from those cultures, and can lead to success or failure. It's been studied quite extensively - browse HBR.org to see research and theory about this.

If you're fortunate, the company you deal with as a customer or employee has a culture that rewards competence and high standards of behavior.

If you're not, you as an employee or customer or member of the public may suffer. Look at recent scandals involving Wells Fargo, Uber, police forces in certain cities, and others. Or companies that release crappy or copied products time after time. These aren't cases of "rogue employees" or "isolated cases." It's often a broken culture or one that encourages people to break rules, or even break the law. See https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/22/technology/uber-workplace... about how this manifested itself with Uber.

This is only true insofar as the company remains small. As soon as it grows, the cultural standards you describe diverge.

Google is the perfect example of this, where while they remained at a reasonable size adhered to their cultural standards staunchly.

They've grown way past the point where that's sustainable and are now exhibiting the exact same predatory business attitude they swore they wouldn't ever (dragonfly, contracts for the military, systematic and all-encompassing spying on their customers, obvious anti-competitive practice in the android space, shameless support for a specific political party, etc...)

That doesn't mean there isn't still some pockets of folks somewhere in there that play by the old rules. It just these business practices can't be wrapped under the "Google culture" umbrella anymore.

Cultures can absolutely change and evolve, in response to changes in leadership, new sources of revenue, or growth. Apple 1984 vs 1994 vs 2004 vs 2014 is a good example, particularly in the late 80s and 90s when it changed quite radically. Yet Steve Jobs' design-focused culture and marketing prowess (along with some negative aspects) re-emerged when he came back, and even as the company's growth exploded.

Google's cultural shift is not just a byproduct of growth, it's a byproduct of the founders and early leadership stepping back and professional technology executives and MBAs taking over. Compare that to Apple, which followed a similar journey but boomeranged back under Steve Jobs Act II. Cook, himself an MBA, is more in the Jobs mold when it comes to corporate ethics; I think his stance on privacy and other issues is admirable. And it's one of the largest tech companies in the world.

Google's culture is not the result of size. It is the result of the fact that absent specific and top-down reinforcement, culture will devolve. When a company all fits in the same garage, it's pretty easy to maintain the culture of the principals because they're right there. You know them personally and are aware of what they think. As a company grows, maintaining the culture that the principals want requires them to make repeated, specific, clear, unambiguous statements, backed up by actions (such as incentivisation, prioritisation, business processes that "bake in" the culture).

As a contractor, I've worked for numerous large companies, sometimes more than once over a span of years. Corporate culture is a real thing, and survives changes of individuals, but is not random/organic unless you let it be, and even then, will often reflect the values baked into other principles. e.g. if you want to know where Amazon's so-called mercenary culture comes from, check out their leadership principles [0].

[0] https://www.amazon.jobs/principles

Perhaps it isn't the company size.

Your examples of "predatory business attitude" must all be signed off at the top - and most likely deeper executive involvement than many decisions.

I suspect that at that company size, you need to have a certain predatory attitude to compete - you definitely need to at least defend against your competitors' practices.

Google, Apple, and Microsoft are great examples of the how we do judge a company's culture.

If anything, your argument works in favour of "company culture". As it grows, company behaviour increasingly averages to profit optimization. A purely market-driven entity does not have any morals other than those enforced through threat of lost profit - be it via regulatory action, or loss of market share.

Google operated censored search in China from 2006 to 2010. They haven't really changed that much.

Shunning dishonest people incentives people to be honest. Why shouldn't that work on companies?

Because individual choice on something that few people care about isn’t really anything to a company with Samsung’s power. It’s like saying “blowing on dust makes it disappear, why wouldn’t they work with Mount Everest?”

True, but that's the general issue of "voting with your wallet" not working in reality.

How is that a mistake?

You've just described a composite, changeable entity that's unable to keep an eye on honesty, and as such one that is very likely to do the same again.