4 ms·
From my experience (I've build and sold 2 companies) there are 2 factors increasing headcount in larger organisations: 1. Layers of management and organization
by freefaler 4y ago
From my experience (I've build and sold 2 companies) there are 2 factors increasing headcount in larger organisations:
1. Layers of management and organizational dynamics push up the number of people. There is a correlation between the number a manager manages and his status in the company. The larger the team - the larger your budgets are - the more important you are. Internal goals (to rise in the organization) override external goals (sell and generate profits).
When owners are leaving the company or have already cashed out, their motivation to keep financial discipline is lowered and management quality decreases. Owners differ from the hired managers because they prioritize external goals (sales, profit, long-term company health) not their own personal employee goals.
2. There is a strange fallacy that when you get your VC capital you need to increase your headcount to be perceived as a "serious" company. If you are 10 people working remotely you won't be able to ask for the same valuation in your second or third round as a "looks like a big company" startup with an office and 100 employees. Investors would push (sometimes inadvertenly) founders to grow personel at higher rate, because investors sell the company to other investors. They package the company to exit, they don't care that much about sales and profitability except as a baseline numbers for the next round valuation. I've seen this several times.
The contrapoint is that Instagram had 13 people when it was sold to Facebook and Whatsapp had around 40 people.
Twitter has 7500 employees. There's got to be a lot of layers of management, processes that can be removed from the company.
For Elon, fixing cashflow now is more important that keeping everything working smoothly. It works smoothly to generate loss every quarter. It's easier to cut the losses than generate revenue. It makes perfect sense.
- pwinnski 4y agoExcept that the financing he used to buy Twitter require him to double net revenue immediately[0]. It's not clear he can cut expenses by more than 50% without negatively impacting revenue. And that's before a massive drop[1] coming from how badly he's handled the acquisition, as well as his personal reputation. 0. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/30/technology/elon-musk-twitter-debt.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/30/technology/elon-musk-twit... 1. https://nypost.com/2022/11/04/elon-musk-says-twitter-has-seen-massive-drop-in-revenue-blames-activist-groups/ https://nypost.com/2022/11/04/elon-musk-says-twitter-has-see...
- freefaler 4y agoThere is an old saying, if you owe the bank 10000 USD it's your problem, if you owe 10 bilion it's theirs. These things can be renegotiated, it's hard but doable. And we can't be sure how focused Elon would be on Twitter at all. I doubt it and things are not looking good for Twitter long-term. He could've be forced to buy it and now it's minimizing future prolbems for him personally.