8 ms·

I think the real "unicorns" are * Small/medium size companies where you recognize most everyone even if you don't work with them. There are enough people so yo

by davidw 4y ago

I think the real "unicorns" are * Small/medium size companies where you recognize most everyone even if you don't work with them. There are enough people so you don't have to do things you're not qualified for like in the very early days of a startup. * Steady growth, but not crazy, venture fueled moonshots. * Selling something that earns enough money to grow the business in a fairly organic way. I worked in a place like that once and loved it, and did some of my best work there. I wasn't anxious that it would implode like a startup, and there wasn't much bureaucracy.

itake 4y ago
I’ve worked at 3-4 small companies (less than 30 employees) and I’ve never been happy. There is always 1 person that makes my life miserable (constantly rejecting my ideas, ego is larger than their experience level, etc). I’ve worked at a 100, and two 1,000 engineer count companies and I never met any “coding princesses” in those roles. I think part of the problem that triggers this is in small companies, one engineer codes, a significant portion of the code base and has a strict vision in their mind about how that code should be structured. When new employees come in to bring new ideas, they become personally offended that their baby is no longer their baby. At large companies no one feels like they own 100% of the code, and each change is very collaborative.
- electrondood 4y ago
  200-400 is the sweet spot, I've found.
- davidw 4y ago
  Yeah I could see that. The place in question where I worked was developing some new products, so we didn't have that kind of situation where someone was gatekeeping or otherwise being unpleasant.
- slaymaker1907 4y ago
  Oh, I've definitely met princesses at large companies, though you are spot on about the ownership issues. The problem really isn't the size of the company but how siloed the code is.
  - itake 4y ago
    Yeah, one of the 1000-person companies had a dev whole-own a critical microservice. Changing it was always a battle, because the owner was very critical of anyone touching 'his' service. Large companies aren't immune, but due to eng specs and collaboration baked into development, its less likely for this to happen.
    - theamk 4y ago
      It looks management was a problem too, as "wholly owned" is a double-edged sword, especially if it's a microservice. Make sure you have solid metrics on your side to record problems with that microservice, document any delays caused my missing features, and eventually even non-technical management should get your point and start to apply pressure.
      - itake 4y ago
        Problems were resolved and everyone was professional, but there certainly was more friction than necessary. Usually management doesn't want to participate in these discussions, because they are more careful about retention (and stepping on toes). 1 engineer quitting is a 10% reduction in their workforce.
- jonas21 4y ago
  > At large companies no one feels like they own 100% of the code, and each change is very collaborative. That's how you end up with endless process, design by committee, and having a dozen meetings with all "stakeholders" before actually writing any code. I'd much rather work at a place where individuals or small groups have a strong vision on the code and product and are capable on executing independently on that. It sounds like the OP would too. But I understand it's a personal preference.
  - davidw 4y ago
    I read something about how a lot of 'super group' bands kind of don't do anything truly great because of this type of dynamic. They all know they're good, they know the others are good, and they all have a bit of an ego and don't want to stomp on the others, so they all tend to "go along with it" without getting too pushy. That leads to good, but not great music.
    - rintakumpu 4y ago
      Definitely. Though there are exceptions. Led Zeppelin comes to mind first.
      - davidw 4y ago
        I think part of the idea was that in an actual band that has been a band for a while, they usually find a way of working together that includes "difficult conversations" and saying no, and sometimes listening to one person's vision rather than tiptoeing around egos.
        RHSman2 4y ago
        This is the long term way to greatness. In companies and life.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
    - 4y ago
- madeofpalk 4y ago
  > I’ve worked at 3-4 small companies (less than 30 employees) What I vastly prefer is the 500-ish size. You can realistically at least know of every other developer (and find those you prefer working with and can learn with), there's more resources than just a 30 person company, and you're just not a tiny insignificant cog in the machine at a 100k mega corp.
  - roland35 4y ago
    It really depends what team you're on! My little corner of megacorp is fast, pretty lean, and I definitely feel like I am able to make an impact on our product (which is a smaller product in the company). I feel much better here than at some of the mid size companies where I felt there was a low ceiling on growth opportunities.
- ricardobayes 4y ago
  Are you ideas normally implementable in the next month or something far-fetched? Try to come up with ideas that are low hanging fruits, easy to do but have a high value. I don't think any company/management in their right mind would constantly reject "good" ideas that ultimately result in more revenue. The ideas I see being rejected are either too far out there or some "dev utopia"-kind of ideas that don't bring in more cash, just burn effort.
  - ornornor 4y ago
    > I don't think any company/management in their right mind would constantly reject "good" ideas that ultimately result in more revenue. We must have worked at very different places.
  - itake 4y ago
    The problem is there are many ways to implement a feature. Often one isn't objectively better or worse than the other (but subjectively it is). Everyone wants the problem solved, but how the problem is solved leads to frustration.
  - krageon 4y ago
    > I don't think any company/management in their right mind would constantly reject "good" ideas that ultimately result in more revenue. This happens extremely frequently and is in fact entirely normal.
makestuff 4y ago
The downside is a significant comp reduction unless it is some sort of trading/hedge fund.
mulmen 4y ago
I worked in a place like that and it was awesome. Unfortunately we were so good at what we did across the board that we got bought by another company to integrate into their larger offering. It made a lot of sense from a business perspective but the tech team in our office was made redundant and so my time there came to an end. I think this is the inevitable conclusion to good, small companies. Since it actually works they will eventually get swallowed by a larger fish who rightly identifies them as a tasty morsel.
- notnaut 4y ago
  Did you at least reap some of the buyout benefits?
- dudus 4y ago
  The Peter Principle also applies to teams and companies.
- Aeolun 4y ago
  Is it really that hard for owners to resist the alure of a buyout? I dunno, I always like to think that I’d continue doing the good thing that I’ve got going.
  - andrewflnr 4y ago
    I really don't want to believe everyone has a price, since that would mean I have one, but the evidence offers very few if any solid counterexamples.
  - yafbum 4y ago
    Sometimes you're kind of forced into it: if your growth starts taking off faster than you thought, you may be in need of more capital just to stay in business. At that point you have a choice: slam the brakes (turn down customers), borrow (risky), raise (dilutes you), or sell out. If you can find a solid working relationship within the acquirer's company, all is good...
    - 4y ago
kirso 4y ago
So much this. After 14 years in a workforce, my happiest moments were in software SMB (joined at 10 people and left at around 100). Never felt like work. We were just building something cool together as a team on the same page. Turned profitable after Series A and never raised again. Later down the road I realised that these are the real unicorns once I actually landed in terrible jobs or corporates and how disengaged everyone is in the legacy organisations. Was genuinely shocked that these companies don't go out of business. I am now trying to collate the list of companies which fit the criteria above but it's really hard.
thrdbndndn 4y ago
Just curious: why you didn't work there anymore?
- davidw 4y ago
  Moved halfway around the world. That company is still doing well from what I can see.
aprdm 4y ago
Might be the exception but I’m at a company with tens of thousand of people and we don’t have many rituals, if you want to solve a problem you go and do it. But you do have to own your solution.

by davidw 4y ago

itake 4y ago

I’ve worked at 3-4 small companies (less than 30 employees) and I’ve never been happy. There is always 1 person that makes my life miserable (constantly rejecting my ideas, ego is larger than their experience level, etc). I’ve worked at a 100, and two 1,000 engineer count companies and I never met any “coding princesses” in those roles. I think part of the problem that triggers this is in small companies, one engineer codes, a significant portion of the code base and has a strict vision in their mind about how that code should be structured. When new employees come in to bring new ideas, they become personally offended that their baby is no longer their baby. At large companies no one feels like they own 100% of the code, and each change is very collaborative.

electrondood 4y ago
200-400 is the sweet spot, I've found.
davidw 4y ago
Yeah I could see that. The place in question where I worked was developing some new products, so we didn't have that kind of situation where someone was gatekeeping or otherwise being unpleasant.
slaymaker1907 4y ago
Oh, I've definitely met princesses at large companies, though you are spot on about the ownership issues. The problem really isn't the size of the company but how siloed the code is.
- itake 4y ago
  Yeah, one of the 1000-person companies had a dev whole-own a critical microservice. Changing it was always a battle, because the owner was very critical of anyone touching 'his' service. Large companies aren't immune, but due to eng specs and collaboration baked into development, its less likely for this to happen.
  - theamk 4y ago
    It looks management was a problem too, as "wholly owned" is a double-edged sword, especially if it's a microservice. Make sure you have solid metrics on your side to record problems with that microservice, document any delays caused my missing features, and eventually even non-technical management should get your point and start to apply pressure.
    - itake 4y ago
      Problems were resolved and everyone was professional, but there certainly was more friction than necessary. Usually management doesn't want to participate in these discussions, because they are more careful about retention (and stepping on toes). 1 engineer quitting is a 10% reduction in their workforce.
jonas21 4y ago
> At large companies no one feels like they own 100% of the code, and each change is very collaborative. That's how you end up with endless process, design by committee, and having a dozen meetings with all "stakeholders" before actually writing any code. I'd much rather work at a place where individuals or small groups have a strong vision on the code and product and are capable on executing independently on that. It sounds like the OP would too. But I understand it's a personal preference.
- davidw 4y ago
  I read something about how a lot of 'super group' bands kind of don't do anything truly great because of this type of dynamic. They all know they're good, they know the others are good, and they all have a bit of an ego and don't want to stomp on the others, so they all tend to "go along with it" without getting too pushy. That leads to good, but not great music.
  - rintakumpu 4y ago
    Definitely. Though there are exceptions. Led Zeppelin comes to mind first.
    - davidw 4y ago
      I think part of the idea was that in an actual band that has been a band for a while, they usually find a way of working together that includes "difficult conversations" and saying no, and sometimes listening to one person's vision rather than tiptoeing around egos.
      - RHSman2 4y ago
        This is the long term way to greatness. In companies and life.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - 4y ago
madeofpalk 4y ago
> I’ve worked at 3-4 small companies (less than 30 employees) What I vastly prefer is the 500-ish size. You can realistically at least know of every other developer (and find those you prefer working with and can learn with), there's more resources than just a 30 person company, and you're just not a tiny insignificant cog in the machine at a 100k mega corp.
- roland35 4y ago
  It really depends what team you're on! My little corner of megacorp is fast, pretty lean, and I definitely feel like I am able to make an impact on our product (which is a smaller product in the company). I feel much better here than at some of the mid size companies where I felt there was a low ceiling on growth opportunities.
ricardobayes 4y ago
Are you ideas normally implementable in the next month or something far-fetched? Try to come up with ideas that are low hanging fruits, easy to do but have a high value. I don't think any company/management in their right mind would constantly reject "good" ideas that ultimately result in more revenue. The ideas I see being rejected are either too far out there or some "dev utopia"-kind of ideas that don't bring in more cash, just burn effort.
- ornornor 4y ago
  > I don't think any company/management in their right mind would constantly reject "good" ideas that ultimately result in more revenue. We must have worked at very different places.
- itake 4y ago
  The problem is there are many ways to implement a feature. Often one isn't objectively better or worse than the other (but subjectively it is). Everyone wants the problem solved, but how the problem is solved leads to frustration.
- krageon 4y ago
  > I don't think any company/management in their right mind would constantly reject "good" ideas that ultimately result in more revenue. This happens extremely frequently and is in fact entirely normal.

makestuff 4y ago

The downside is a significant comp reduction unless it is some sort of trading/hedge fund.

mulmen 4y ago

I worked in a place like that and it was awesome. Unfortunately we were so good at what we did across the board that we got bought by another company to integrate into their larger offering. It made a lot of sense from a business perspective but the tech team in our office was made redundant and so my time there came to an end. I think this is the inevitable conclusion to good, small companies. Since it actually works they will eventually get swallowed by a larger fish who rightly identifies them as a tasty morsel.

notnaut 4y ago
Did you at least reap some of the buyout benefits?
dudus 4y ago
The Peter Principle also applies to teams and companies.
Aeolun 4y ago
Is it really that hard for owners to resist the alure of a buyout? I dunno, I always like to think that I’d continue doing the good thing that I’ve got going.
- andrewflnr 4y ago
  I really don't want to believe everyone has a price, since that would mean I have one, but the evidence offers very few if any solid counterexamples.
- yafbum 4y ago
  Sometimes you're kind of forced into it: if your growth starts taking off faster than you thought, you may be in need of more capital just to stay in business. At that point you have a choice: slam the brakes (turn down customers), borrow (risky), raise (dilutes you), or sell out. If you can find a solid working relationship within the acquirer's company, all is good...
  - 4y ago

kirso 4y ago

So much this. After 14 years in a workforce, my happiest moments were in software SMB (joined at 10 people and left at around 100). Never felt like work. We were just building something cool together as a team on the same page. Turned profitable after Series A and never raised again. Later down the road I realised that these are the real unicorns once I actually landed in terrible jobs or corporates and how disengaged everyone is in the legacy organisations. Was genuinely shocked that these companies don't go out of business. I am now trying to collate the list of companies which fit the criteria above but it's really hard.

thrdbndndn 4y ago

Just curious: why you didn't work there anymore?

davidw 4y ago
Moved halfway around the world. That company is still doing well from what I can see.

aprdm 4y ago

Might be the exception but I’m at a company with tens of thousand of people and we don’t have many rituals, if you want to solve a problem you go and do it. But you do have to own your solution.