6 ms·

BigCo: -Better pay, benefits, stock options -More organized in all regards (sprints, HR, ramp up, training, etc.) -More "name recognition" e.g. when you tell

BigCo: -Better pay, benefits, stock options -More organized in all regards (sprints, HR, ramp up, training, etc.) -More "name recognition" e.g. when you tell people where you work, they immediately know/are familiar with the company -Hours will usually be between 40-60 per week -Not often mentioned, but with so many people, you're more likely to make "work friends" -Siloed into your specific role - if there's a new technology or idea you want to implement, there's usually a few levels of approvals you need to go through -Can feel like you're just a small cog in a big machine Startup (not "established startup" e.g. multiple rounds of funding): -Immediate impact -- you're usually defining the direction of whatever you're working on -You get a chance to "wear many hats" i.e. work on various different projects/tasks -If there's any equity/options, there's a possibility these become lucrative (although I would assume this is unlikely) -Usually your hours are more flexible -Can get "lonely" if the team is small -Pay is usually below market or if you're a founder...nonexistent -Can have long hours e.g. 80 hour weeks SmallCo: The middle ground of the two. Almost all the pros and cons of the above, but just not as extreme. For example, HR is usually more organized than a startup, but not as organized as a BigCo. Or, you have more of an impact on the product than at a BigCo, but less than at a startup.

lloydde 9y ago
That is a solid response. I’d add some of the obvious. At a startup people are spending more team creating, taking advantage of technical advantages and asymmetrical opportunities, taking ownership and getting things done. More likely to work directly with a higher ratio of people that are innovative, outstanding problem solvers or seem smarter than you in one or more areas. Learning everyday on the job, but also “putting the chairs away” everyday. Can be painful if some essential role, say marketing or sales, is not sufficiently covered by the band and thinking from those specialties influencing the offering. Software creation does not currently scale well, so overhead exponentially increases, specifically middle management and project management. The Peter Principle comes to mind: “an observation that the tendency in most organizational hierarchies, such as that of a corporation, is for every employee to rise in the hierarchy through promotion until they reach the levels of their respective incompetence.“ You have products and systems and real customers, so a lot of time becomes spent on negotiation and compromise. With less ownership or more specialized ownership often comes less stress. At larger companies more likely to be able to achieve work/life balance, but will also encounter political manipulators. At larger orgs more likely to have mentors and educational opportunities, but may also include cargo cults. With rich sources of data and systems at scale more opportunity to explore your theories as your leisure (as long as you can get access). More likely to have a crippled “secured” laptop where you can’t install or even security update software until it is IT approved. Large organization means more likely to find communities that match your interests — as long as the interest isn’t entrepreneurial ;)
kichik 9y ago
+1 for work friends, but I would also add that small startups have a bigger chance of strong comradery. You work long hours with the same people on something you all feel is important.
analog31 9y ago
Great summary. I would add that at a BigCo, you can survive business failures by changing teams or getting reassigned, often moving upward in the process if you're motivated to do so. Failures could include a toxic boss or co-worker, a failed project, or even your own mistakes. At a Startup or SmallCo, you do the same thing by changing employers. I started my career at a SmallCo, and am now in my 20th year at a BigCo.
abalashov 9y ago
I realise it’s anecdata, but in my case I can say with conviction that the larger the company, the less likely I was to make friends there. Oh, there are definitely more people. But the rigid division of labour means they’re often siloed off and you’re less likely to interface with them outside of highly structured interactions such as meetings, though this can be offset by both informal after-work drinking sessions (if so inclined) and in companies with more “cross-functional” proclivities. The more substantial obstacle is just the nature of the people big company jobs tend to attract. They can be highly capable specialists, but big companies also are set up to extract value from relatively unremarkable entrenched maintenance specialists and ordinary cubicle dwellers. The latter are also less likely to be unusual and/or “interesting”, and more likely to jealously guard work-life balance and get ready to bail at 4:59 PM. I don’t mean to say that’s a bad thing, but it certainly makes them less socially accessible. They’re also more apt to make small talk mostly about sports, a form of default male interaction that got on my nerves enough that it was a factor in my moving on from several jobs early in my career. It may just be a place and time in my life thing, but the only enduring friendships and social networks I’ve gained from my time in W-2 land have been in very small companies of maybe half a dozen people.
hoborama 9y ago
Slightly off-topic, but I can't believe the long hours you guys in the USA work as standard. In the UK, most jobs these days are 37.5 hours. Only a few do 40. Of course there may be (rare) occasions where you need to work overtime, but 40-60 hours on a regular basis seems crazy. 80 hours is insane. People here simply wouldn't do it. I doubt anyone gets any more productive beyond around 30 hours a week.
- abalashov 9y ago
  Keep in mind that hours don't necessarily translate to productivity. But yes, Americans work a lot of hours, and in the white collar professions this is especially the cultural norm. Living at the office or being tied to one's computer at home 24/7 (or both) are pretty typical.
  - jacobr 9y ago
    Does this require a stay-at-home partner? I don't know how I would ever be able to handle my daily life, stuff like cooking, laundry, sleeping, errands, going to the hairdresser, working out, hanging out with my partner... and I didn't even mention the kids!
    - abalashov 9y ago
      It generally does. The exception would be very well-compensated people in the corporate world who can afford au pairs and nannies, and, effectively, the modern equivalent of household servants. This is how the Sheryl Sandbergs of the world "lean in" and "do it all" — lots and lots of hired help. There is no other way. I am not rich, and I ended up the single dad of a two year-old recently. So I am still trying to figure that puzzle for myself. Fortunately, I do have the flexibility of being self-employed, but on the other hand, if I don't work (long hours), neither I nor my son will have much to live on.
ademup 9y ago
I'd like to add realistic departure opportunities if you get tired of the job: BigCo: No sweat, I'll get another job by name dropping BigCo and its people who are likely also well known. StartUp: I can never leave, too many customers rely on me, I have too much riding on this. SmallCo: Notice of intent to leave + maybe a month or two to find/train the next human.

lloydde 9y ago

That is a solid response. I’d add some of the obvious. At a startup people are spending more team creating, taking advantage of technical advantages and asymmetrical opportunities, taking ownership and getting things done. More likely to work directly with a higher ratio of people that are innovative, outstanding problem solvers or seem smarter than you in one or more areas. Learning everyday on the job, but also “putting the chairs away” everyday. Can be painful if some essential role, say marketing or sales, is not sufficiently covered by the band and thinking from those specialties influencing the offering. Software creation does not currently scale well, so overhead exponentially increases, specifically middle management and project management. The Peter Principle comes to mind: “an observation that the tendency in most organizational hierarchies, such as that of a corporation, is for every employee to rise in the hierarchy through promotion until they reach the levels of their respective incompetence.“ You have products and systems and real customers, so a lot of time becomes spent on negotiation and compromise. With less ownership or more specialized ownership often comes less stress. At larger companies more likely to be able to achieve work/life balance, but will also encounter political manipulators. At larger orgs more likely to have mentors and educational opportunities, but may also include cargo cults. With rich sources of data and systems at scale more opportunity to explore your theories as your leisure (as long as you can get access). More likely to have a crippled “secured” laptop where you can’t install or even security update software until it is IT approved. Large organization means more likely to find communities that match your interests — as long as the interest isn’t entrepreneurial ;)

kichik 9y ago

+1 for work friends, but I would also add that small startups have a bigger chance of strong comradery. You work long hours with the same people on something you all feel is important.

analog31 9y ago

Great summary. I would add that at a BigCo, you can survive business failures by changing teams or getting reassigned, often moving upward in the process if you're motivated to do so. Failures could include a toxic boss or co-worker, a failed project, or even your own mistakes. At a Startup or SmallCo, you do the same thing by changing employers. I started my career at a SmallCo, and am now in my 20th year at a BigCo.

abalashov 9y ago

I realise it’s anecdata, but in my case I can say with conviction that the larger the company, the less likely I was to make friends there. Oh, there are definitely more people. But the rigid division of labour means they’re often siloed off and you’re less likely to interface with them outside of highly structured interactions such as meetings, though this can be offset by both informal after-work drinking sessions (if so inclined) and in companies with more “cross-functional” proclivities. The more substantial obstacle is just the nature of the people big company jobs tend to attract. They can be highly capable specialists, but big companies also are set up to extract value from relatively unremarkable entrenched maintenance specialists and ordinary cubicle dwellers. The latter are also less likely to be unusual and/or “interesting”, and more likely to jealously guard work-life balance and get ready to bail at 4:59 PM. I don’t mean to say that’s a bad thing, but it certainly makes them less socially accessible. They’re also more apt to make small talk mostly about sports, a form of default male interaction that got on my nerves enough that it was a factor in my moving on from several jobs early in my career. It may just be a place and time in my life thing, but the only enduring friendships and social networks I’ve gained from my time in W-2 land have been in very small companies of maybe half a dozen people.

hoborama 9y ago

Slightly off-topic, but I can't believe the long hours you guys in the USA work as standard. In the UK, most jobs these days are 37.5 hours. Only a few do 40. Of course there may be (rare) occasions where you need to work overtime, but 40-60 hours on a regular basis seems crazy. 80 hours is insane. People here simply wouldn't do it. I doubt anyone gets any more productive beyond around 30 hours a week.

abalashov 9y ago
Keep in mind that hours don't necessarily translate to productivity. But yes, Americans work a lot of hours, and in the white collar professions this is especially the cultural norm. Living at the office or being tied to one's computer at home 24/7 (or both) are pretty typical.
- jacobr 9y ago
  Does this require a stay-at-home partner? I don't know how I would ever be able to handle my daily life, stuff like cooking, laundry, sleeping, errands, going to the hairdresser, working out, hanging out with my partner... and I didn't even mention the kids!
  - abalashov 9y ago
    It generally does. The exception would be very well-compensated people in the corporate world who can afford au pairs and nannies, and, effectively, the modern equivalent of household servants. This is how the Sheryl Sandbergs of the world "lean in" and "do it all" — lots and lots of hired help. There is no other way. I am not rich, and I ended up the single dad of a two year-old recently. So I am still trying to figure that puzzle for myself. Fortunately, I do have the flexibility of being self-employed, but on the other hand, if I don't work (long hours), neither I nor my son will have much to live on.

ademup 9y ago

I'd like to add realistic departure opportunities if you get tired of the job: BigCo: No sweat, I'll get another job by name dropping BigCo and its people who are likely also well known. StartUp: I can never leave, too many customers rely on me, I have too much riding on this. SmallCo: Notice of intent to leave + maybe a month or two to find/train the next human.