5 ms·

I wonder how one would structure a big company to keep it more agile. Some thoughts: - Salaries would be lower, so that people coming for the money wouldn't. T

I wonder how one would structure a big company to keep it more agile. Some thoughts: - Salaries would be lower, so that people coming for the money wouldn't. There's be more variable pay. This will eliminate the "who cares if the product fails? I get a big paycheque anyway" attitude I've seen in a big company. - When a product fails, each individual on that team will have something to lose: skin in the game. Maybe he won't get a bonus. Or will get paid less next year. Or gets demoted one level. Or something. - Each VP would have the flexibility to pay his team the way he wants. The only thing he'll be held accountable for is the results. No salary band for each level, etc. - He'll also be able to hire people he thinks are better. Maybe people who've been a founder or early employee of a startup more than people who've worked at other big bureaucratic companies. - Engineering practices won't be centrally enforced, as they're in some big companies. If a team believes that unit testing every class, or code reviews that drag on for weeks, or <insert other practice here> have a low ROI, they'll be able to choose different practices. Maybe each (S)VP would get to define his team's practices. These are just ideas. Maybe you can come up with better ones. What would you to do to make a big company more like a startup?

watwut 8y ago
- Seriously, having lower salary does not make people care more. There are plenty of lazy people who don't care who are not paid maximum possible. - You will have people unwilling to work on risky projects. Good engineers assigned to troubled projects will be resentful more then normally and leave faster.
- matfil 8y ago
  What if employees were offered a substantial degree of choice in which projects they're assigned to. At that point, risky projects would need to have commensurate rewards attached. Does this solve the problem? Valve, for example, seems to take this sort of approach, and while it's not without criticism, it seems to work okay for some people.
  - watwut 8y ago
    That will attract gamblers and repulse systematic workers who care more about craft itself and less about estimating, choosing and negotiating projects.
- kartickv 8y ago
  > Seriously, having lower salary does not make people care more. It does, when coupled with variable pay they could lose if their project doesn't work out. > There are plenty of lazy people who don't care who are not paid maximum possible. And those lazy people will then find jobs at other big companies, where they don't have to work hard and still make more, more appealing.
toomuchtodo 8y ago
If you’re working for below market rate, you might be passionate, but you’re still making a poor decision. Don’t let emotions sabotage your financial well-being.
- kartickv 8y ago
  Do you realise that you've argued that nobody should choose to work at an early-stage startup? Your salary is below market rate, but not when you include variable pay, in startups, and in my proposal.
  - toomuchtodo 8y ago
    Yes. Nobody except founders should work at an early stage startup. Anyone else is likely throwing their time away at below market rate. Remember, most startups fail. You're advocating for treating the job as a lottery ticket. Might as well make market rate and invest in companies where you have better information.
    - kartickv 8y ago
      That's your opinion. There are people who'll accept lower salary and higher variable pay, and for them, my suggested option is no worse than working at an early stage company in terms of risk. Actually slightly less risky, since they don't have to worry about the company going bankrupt, they'll have a comfortable office space, a prestigious name on their resume, their relatives will be impressed by it, etc.
amyjess 8y ago
That honestly sounds like a horrendous place to work. Paying people below market rate is exploitation, and making people work with a Sword of Damocles over their heads is a good way to increase the suicide rate.
- kartickv 8y ago
  Do you realise that you've described early-stage startups?
  - amyjess 8y ago
    ...and those are companies I have no desire to ever work for. I tried it once. The company was an abusive hellhole, and I'm glad I got out. Edit: Also, if you're working at an early-stage startup and making below market rate, you better be a founder or your employer is screwing you over.
    - kartickv 8y ago
      That's your opinion. There are people who're willing to earn less salary and more variable pay, and those people would be fine with early-stage startups and with my proposal.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
nostrademons 8y ago
If you're going to do that, why bother having the big company at all? You've just described a startup - why not just go start a startup where you get all those conditions yourself, and also cut through a lot of bureaucratic & legal red tape and get to enjoy the full fruits of your labor. If you're worried about risk and spreading your bets, why not start a venture fund that invests small amounts in lots of little startups and takes a percentage of the success, the way YCombinator does it?
- kartickv 8y ago
  You're going to have big companies, anyway, so why not make them more productive? My proposal includes variable pay, so you can enjoy the fruits of your labor more than you can in today's big companies like Microsoft and Google.
fhbdukfrh 8y ago
This is kind of like asking what would you do to make a donkey more like a zebra? You can paint some stripes on it but it's still a donkey. They are fundamentally different creatures. You can instill some startup practices at a bigco, just like a start up can benefit from some organization and structure, but they are not variations of the same beast
- kartickv 8y ago
  You're lost in your own analogy. Big companies are going to exist, anyway, so can we make them more productive?

watwut 8y ago

- Seriously, having lower salary does not make people care more. There are plenty of lazy people who don't care who are not paid maximum possible. - You will have people unwilling to work on risky projects. Good engineers assigned to troubled projects will be resentful more then normally and leave faster.

matfil 8y ago
What if employees were offered a substantial degree of choice in which projects they're assigned to. At that point, risky projects would need to have commensurate rewards attached. Does this solve the problem? Valve, for example, seems to take this sort of approach, and while it's not without criticism, it seems to work okay for some people.
- watwut 8y ago
  That will attract gamblers and repulse systematic workers who care more about craft itself and less about estimating, choosing and negotiating projects.
kartickv 8y ago
> Seriously, having lower salary does not make people care more. It does, when coupled with variable pay they could lose if their project doesn't work out. > There are plenty of lazy people who don't care who are not paid maximum possible. And those lazy people will then find jobs at other big companies, where they don't have to work hard and still make more, more appealing.

toomuchtodo 8y ago

If you’re working for below market rate, you might be passionate, but you’re still making a poor decision. Don’t let emotions sabotage your financial well-being.

kartickv 8y ago
Do you realise that you've argued that nobody should choose to work at an early-stage startup? Your salary is below market rate, but not when you include variable pay, in startups, and in my proposal.
- toomuchtodo 8y ago
  Yes. Nobody except founders should work at an early stage startup. Anyone else is likely throwing their time away at below market rate. Remember, most startups fail. You're advocating for treating the job as a lottery ticket. Might as well make market rate and invest in companies where you have better information.
  - kartickv 8y ago
    That's your opinion. There are people who'll accept lower salary and higher variable pay, and for them, my suggested option is no worse than working at an early stage company in terms of risk. Actually slightly less risky, since they don't have to worry about the company going bankrupt, they'll have a comfortable office space, a prestigious name on their resume, their relatives will be impressed by it, etc.

amyjess 8y ago

That honestly sounds like a horrendous place to work. Paying people below market rate is exploitation, and making people work with a Sword of Damocles over their heads is a good way to increase the suicide rate.

kartickv 8y ago
Do you realise that you've described early-stage startups?
- amyjess 8y ago
  ...and those are companies I have no desire to ever work for. I tried it once. The company was an abusive hellhole, and I'm glad I got out. Edit: Also, if you're working at an early-stage startup and making below market rate, you better be a founder or your employer is screwing you over.
  - kartickv 8y ago
    That's your opinion. There are people who're willing to earn less salary and more variable pay, and those people would be fine with early-stage startups and with my proposal.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

nostrademons 8y ago

If you're going to do that, why bother having the big company at all? You've just described a startup - why not just go start a startup where you get all those conditions yourself, and also cut through a lot of bureaucratic & legal red tape and get to enjoy the full fruits of your labor. If you're worried about risk and spreading your bets, why not start a venture fund that invests small amounts in lots of little startups and takes a percentage of the success, the way YCombinator does it?

kartickv 8y ago
You're going to have big companies, anyway, so why not make them more productive? My proposal includes variable pay, so you can enjoy the fruits of your labor more than you can in today's big companies like Microsoft and Google.

fhbdukfrh 8y ago

This is kind of like asking what would you do to make a donkey more like a zebra? You can paint some stripes on it but it's still a donkey. They are fundamentally different creatures. You can instill some startup practices at a bigco, just like a start up can benefit from some organization and structure, but they are not variations of the same beast

kartickv 8y ago
You're lost in your own analogy. Big companies are going to exist, anyway, so can we make them more productive?