4 ms·
Seems to me that there's three stages to a company's life: Great to invest in, great to work for: Microsoft/Google in the early days Great to invest in, not g
by yingw787 8y ago
Seems to me that there's three stages to a company's life:
Great to invest in, great to work for: Microsoft/Google in the early days
Great to invest in, not great to work for: AT&T today
Not great to invest in, not great to work for: Oracle today
There's probably companies out there that are not great to invest in and great to work for, but I don't know how common it is for them to become great companies to invest in.
- anongraddebt 8y agoInteresting taxonomy. To the extent this maps to the growth potential of a company, I think the definition of "great to work for" is relevant. Joy Covey, Amazon's first CFO, left in 2000 (I believe) and when asked later why she left she said something about the work place being too chaotic and fast paced. She attributed the majority of this work dynamic to Amazon being an internet business. My point is just that some companies (e.g. Amazon) have work cultures typically understood as less appealing than companies (e.g. Google) with similar growth profiles and thus similar investment value profiles. ---- Covey, of course, walked out with $200M+ in Amazon stock. So, work culture could be sub par while the company is still "great to work for."
- pjc50 8y agoNot great to invest in, but great to work for: early-stage startups with fancy work environments but no real chance of success.
- goldenchrome 8y agoThose usually end up being companies that aren't great to work for because of how dysfunctional most of them are. Fancy work environments don't make me happy, but clueless management sure makes me unhappy.
- firebones 8y agoThis is wise. Choose a company to work for the same way you choose a company to invest in.