4 ms·
Having worked for some startups and a couple of large companies, I note that while the large companies tend to fall into this generic-management, vision-free th
by ScottBurson 7y ago
Having worked for some startups and a couple of large companies, I note that while the large companies tend to fall into this generic-management, vision-free thinking, successful startups are not run that way. Successful startups are all about adapting to the particular niche they're trying to serve.
(I did once work for a startup that was run somewhat like a large company. It failed. Most startups fail anyway, of course, but I don't think this one had to fail.)
- mlthoughts2018 7y agoI almost burst out laughing reading this. I’ve also worked across start-ups and larger established companies, across industries and with different ranges of success outcomes. Never saw one iota of difference in how management is handled. If anything, the reduced bureaucracy of the start-ups was a problem because it left executive behavior wildly unconstrained, where rampant religious bigotry, sexual harassment, micromanagement and overwork were elevated into practically glorified business ideals and self-serving cultish culture mandates Executives at bigger companies were just as reprehensible most of the time, but at least had many more layers of other corporate oversight constraining them to at least give appearances of professionalism and sincerely consider employee’s needs when designing policy.
- ScottBurson 7y agoAnd were those startups successful?
- mlthoughts2018 7y agoOne of them was, yes.
- ScottBurson 7y agoI understand what you're saying about unconstrained executive behavior at startups, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm referring specifically to whether they ran the business as a generic commodity business, where cost-cutting took precedence over innovation. For all their flaws and misbehaviors, I'll wager that the successful ones didn't.
- bjornsing 7y agoSo... managers/executives are just reprehensible in general...?
- mlthoughts2018 7y agoYeah, there is even a whole academic-grade sociology book about this, called Moral Mazes.
- bjornsing 7y agoInteresting. Haven’t come across this book before. A quick glance on the Wikipedia page[1] doesn’t give me the impression that it paints all managers/executives as reprehensible though... But I guess you’ve read it and come to this conclusion? I do agree though that there is, in many of the organizations I’ve worked in, large and smallish, a perverse incentive structure in that "instead of ability, talent, and dedicated service to an organization, politics, adroit talk, luck, connections, and self-promotion are the real sorters of people into sheep and goats" [1]. But you think the solution to this is more bureaucracy? I’m leaning more towards better selection, cultural norms and perhaps some “separation of powers”. But I’m speculating. 1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Mazes https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Mazes
- lonelappde 7y agoMost people are selfish. But this only matters when people have power. That's why people in power look so bad.
- bjornsing 7y agoAn interesting and succinct explanation. It goes well with my own thinking too, that (in management/power) you want people who are focused on the outside world, with a “selfish” desire to affect/change it. When they act “selfishly” they will at least do something resembling executing on a strategy. The people you really want to avoid are those that are not very talented or able and just want power for its own sake. When they turn “selfish” they will focus within the organization, promoting cronies, expanding their power base, etc, etc. when others see this the culture goes to hell... That’s my current theory at least. :P
- ineedasername 7y agoYes, absolutely, I think that's a part of the success of startups, possibly any new company. The participants fully know, understand and believe in the company's products and vision,