3 ms·

I've started companies that grew from 1 to 50 people. I find that business advice from 37signals is often quite naïve and I hope people treat it as a data point

by jwr 16y ago

I've started companies that grew from 1 to 50 people. I find that business advice from 37signals is often quite naïve and I hope people treat it as a data point, not as a set of guidelines. Managing a company below 25 people is relatively easy. You can still talk to most people every day, you can gather them all in one room, information flow is unrestricted. But staying under 25 people means for most companies that you are stifling growth. Once you get above the magical 25 people threshold, you'll find that it is simply impossible to manage the company effectively using a completely flat structure. Also, you'll discover a lot of new problems you never suspected existed before: you'll need internal PR, for instance, as people in one part of the company won't know what people in other parts are doing. There will be myths to dispel, growing animosities, lack of direction. And there is simply no way you can keep your pretty flat structure with 45 people. I know that 37signals' advice resonates with people. They are the cool kids. But keep in mind they are an exceptional company, in every sense of the word.

mhartl 16y ago
It's distressing how often, especially among technical people, the equality flat == good is taken as a given. Hackers have a healthy skepticism for arbitrary authority, but we often erroneously extend that attitude to hierarchical structures in general. In the limit of large numbers of people, hierarchies are the only structures that scale; moreover, they can do so over many orders of magnitude, from small businesses with 10^2 people up to huge organizations with 10^4, 10^5, or even 10^6 people (such as GE, IBM, Walmart, or the U.S. military).
- wladimir 16y ago
  That's why small organizations are preferable to most hackers. I don't see how that changes flat == good. GE, IBM, Walmart, or the U.S. military would be places I'd never work, given any choice. Scaling is not necessarily good, it usually means dumbing down to the average.
  - jwr 16y ago
    Fair enough. But in that case most hackers should also accept that they won't make a boatload of money. If you refuse to grow your organization, don't expect to be a millionaire, especially if you follow the philosophy of running a cash-positive business in the long term, without selling it. You can't have your cake and eat it, too.

by jwr 16y ago

mhartl 16y ago

It's distressing how often, especially among technical people, the equality flat == good is taken as a given. Hackers have a healthy skepticism for arbitrary authority, but we often erroneously extend that attitude to hierarchical structures in general. In the limit of large numbers of people, hierarchies are the only structures that scale; moreover, they can do so over many orders of magnitude, from small businesses with 10^2 people up to huge organizations with 10^4, 10^5, or even 10^6 people (such as GE, IBM, Walmart, or the U.S. military).

wladimir 16y ago
That's why small organizations are preferable to most hackers. I don't see how that changes flat == good. GE, IBM, Walmart, or the U.S. military would be places I'd never work, given any choice. Scaling is not necessarily good, it usually means dumbing down to the average.
- jwr 16y ago
  Fair enough. But in that case most hackers should also accept that they won't make a boatload of money. If you refuse to grow your organization, don't expect to be a millionaire, especially if you follow the philosophy of running a cash-positive business in the long term, without selling it. You can't have your cake and eat it, too.