4 ms·

I'd say for a big org the priority isn't "not fucking up", it's not objecting. In a small growth org, despite severe rank differences, you're likely to have so

I'd say for a big org the priority isn't "not fucking up", it's not objecting. In a small growth org, despite severe rank differences, you're likely to have some impact on direction if you disagree. In a big org, there is no impact. You either are the wavemaker or those gleefully riding the waves. It doesn't matter how many "we listen to everybody's opinion" there are in these big orgs, wavemakers simply keep a lot of key information to themselves which puts everyone else within at a huge disadvantage. This also causes innovative thinkers to propose ideas less, because they got burned that one time when a wavemaker shut them down with previously hidden information.

majormajor 4y ago
> I'd say for a big org the priority isn't "not fucking up", it's not objecting. At the organization's level it's "don't fuck up" since you're already making a lot of money and a lot of people's livelihoods are depending on that - the trick, if you're managing in a big org, is how to avoid that turning to a "don't disagree" culture before "not changing" turns into a bad thing instead of a good thing. I haven't figured out how to do that - or to work under people who also haven't - so I prefer small orgs.
- waboremo 4y ago
  I wonder if the "don't fuck up" principle at an organizational level really applies past a certain point. I think that's where a lot of the internal dilemmas stem from. Google as an example, they can "fuck up" tremendously on an organizational level, numerous failed products and services costing billions. Yet they still roll on, and even interns are very well aware not to do something catastrophically detrimental such as turning Google Search into a TikTok clone. There's just far too much momentum that fucking up should ever be a concern once you're at Google/Intel's level. So perhaps the fear of fucking up plays an integral role in creating this atmosphere of unchanging. When you're fearful, you're less likely to take risks in general, even if that fear is subconscious rather than active.

majormajor 4y ago

> I'd say for a big org the priority isn't "not fucking up", it's not objecting. At the organization's level it's "don't fuck up" since you're already making a lot of money and a lot of people's livelihoods are depending on that - the trick, if you're managing in a big org, is how to avoid that turning to a "don't disagree" culture before "not changing" turns into a bad thing instead of a good thing. I haven't figured out how to do that - or to work under people who also haven't - so I prefer small orgs.

waboremo 4y ago
I wonder if the "don't fuck up" principle at an organizational level really applies past a certain point. I think that's where a lot of the internal dilemmas stem from. Google as an example, they can "fuck up" tremendously on an organizational level, numerous failed products and services costing billions. Yet they still roll on, and even interns are very well aware not to do something catastrophically detrimental such as turning Google Search into a TikTok clone. There's just far too much momentum that fucking up should ever be a concern once you're at Google/Intel's level. So perhaps the fear of fucking up plays an integral role in creating this atmosphere of unchanging. When you're fearful, you're less likely to take risks in general, even if that fear is subconscious rather than active.