3 ms·
Maybe these orgs are just too damn big. Google is 75k people, MS 124k. Those are on the small side, I can't remember which tech company, but they're at 600k. Th
by aaron-lebo 9y ago
Maybe these orgs are just too damn big. Google is 75k people, MS 124k. Those are on the small side, I can't remember which tech company, but they're at 600k. They're also chained to stock prices and earnings. They can't commit to any product for any sizable length of time.
I'm gonna preach it until I try it or die and figure out it doesn't work, but my genuine belief is these companies are too big to effectively function or to counter threats. If your company population is a small town, how many middle managers do you have? Tens of thousands?
- tenaciousDaniel 9y agoNot necessarily a tech company, but I worked at Disney for a few years. They have about 500K employees. It's such a large company that their own companies sue each other. Like, our team couldn't use some Disney IP because we had to have our legal team clear with their legal team. That's when you know a company is too big. Edit: by "their own companies" I mean all of their subsidiaries.
- gamblor956 9y agoUsing another company's IP would always require a legal agreement... Size and common ownership are irrelevant.
- digi_owl 9y agoCould have sworn i read about Sony, via intermediaries, sued itself. This because Sony both produced media devices with a record/copy capability, and content.
- fauigerzigerk 9y agoIf they are too big to effectively function or counter threats then how did they get that big in the first place? Clearly size has benefits that compensate for some of the undeniable downsides. It's almost a tautology. Also, look at the great organisational and cultural variety among big companies. Size is not the only thing that defines organisational complexity and effectiveness.
- digi_owl 9y agoWould not surprise me if it hits somewhere around 150 or so, as that is supposedly the number of people we can directly keep track of in our heads.