4 ms·

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 integr

by 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...
  - phkahler 4y ago
    There is actually nothing wrong with turning down business. No need to grow faster than you can handle. A company in the situation you describe is doing something very right, so maintaining that seems like a good strategy.
    - yafbum 4y ago
      For an entrepreneur who set out to fix a problem in the world, it can feel very wrong not to give customers the solution that you know you can give them, for mere capital reasons.
    - 1123581321 4y ago
      There is nothing wrong with it, but it's hard to do skillfully, especially in the chaos generated by rapid growth, and you may not realize the need until you're already trapped by your existing commitments. Good relationships in the company can fall apart in the decision-making, too (e.g. if someone's personal/career growth path is cut off by the decision to stop pursing something that's been built towards for years.) Some types of businesses can do it more easily than others. Professional services can probably do it the easiest. A B2C business with a turnkey offering could have a lot of trouble paring back, especially if the product has a physical aspect.
- lazyasciiart 4y ago
  If it gets that much bigger you (the owner) probably aren't doing the same thing you were doing.
- dzikimarian 4y ago
  Try reversing this argument and talk about employee resisting much better offer, to remain loyal and you'll get eaten alive by commenters :-)
  - Aeolun 4y ago
    Is that so? I see a lot of people not wanting to switch for solely more money because they expect to hate it at a potential new company.
    - dzikimarian 4y ago
      Yes and the same works for founders. If they expect, they will hate it after buyout, they will probably resist. But what if new opportunity is ok, gets you 30% more money, but your departure makes your current company very sad and perhaps worse place for everyone to work at? I wouldn't expect a lot of support for the idea of staying if you ask the internet for an opinion.
  - TheOtherHobbes 4y ago
    The two aren't unrelated. In the distant past companies had professional and personal development programs. Some even had a commitment to try to avoid layoffs. When MBA culture took over in the 80s it became normal for companies to act like extraction machines. Employee loyalty crashed, with a corresponding increase in churn. Taking investment money makes it hard to create a humane culture. But smaller private companies do at least have the option to consider it.
- __pache__ 4y ago
  You try dealing with everyone's problems and hitting all the deadlines all the time..!
- nunez 4y ago
  If you don't, your successor will. Money makes the world go round.
tluyben2 4y ago
Same here. Got absorbed and it killed everything good about the place.
TranquilMarmot 4y ago
I was going to say the same thing. Worked at a mid-sized startup, great culture, amazing coworkers that I'm still friends with today. We did great work and got bought out by a large company who had promised not to mess with our culture too much. That didn't last very long haha
- cutemonster 4y ago
  > mess with our culture What did they change/do? If I may ask
  - krageon 4y ago
    At a guess, having seen this before: - Paperwork - Extra managers - Lots of "stakeholder management"
    - cutemonster 4y ago
      Seems that was a good guess, have a look at the sibling reply :-)
  - TranquilMarmot 4y ago
    It was a very slow creep of changes. For the first year, they really didn't change much (except gutted our health insurance plan and got rid of "unlimited" vacation). Eventually, they tried to get us to integrate with more and more of their other products, which introduced a TON of extra "stakeholders" on every single project. With every extra stakeholder they also had to introduce extra meetings and extra process until even making a small change felt like a massive chore. I went from merging dozens of changes a week to maybe one or two. Felt pretty claustrophobic after a bit so I ended up leaving to go somewhere smaller.
    - cutemonster 4y ago
      How interesting! (And sad, I hope that / guess that the new place is/was better) > integrate with more and more of their other products, which introduced a TON of extra "stakeholders" That scenario I hadn't heard about before. Good to know about that way for things to fail, too. If you haven't seen: "Excess management is costing the U.S. $3T per year (2016)" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34290539 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34290539

by mulmen 4y ago

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...
- phkahler 4y ago
  There is actually nothing wrong with turning down business. No need to grow faster than you can handle. A company in the situation you describe is doing something very right, so maintaining that seems like a good strategy.
  - yafbum 4y ago
    For an entrepreneur who set out to fix a problem in the world, it can feel very wrong not to give customers the solution that you know you can give them, for mere capital reasons.
  - 1123581321 4y ago
    There is nothing wrong with it, but it's hard to do skillfully, especially in the chaos generated by rapid growth, and you may not realize the need until you're already trapped by your existing commitments. Good relationships in the company can fall apart in the decision-making, too (e.g. if someone's personal/career growth path is cut off by the decision to stop pursing something that's been built towards for years.) Some types of businesses can do it more easily than others. Professional services can probably do it the easiest. A B2C business with a turnkey offering could have a lot of trouble paring back, especially if the product has a physical aspect.
lazyasciiart 4y ago
If it gets that much bigger you (the owner) probably aren't doing the same thing you were doing.
dzikimarian 4y ago
Try reversing this argument and talk about employee resisting much better offer, to remain loyal and you'll get eaten alive by commenters :-)
- Aeolun 4y ago
  Is that so? I see a lot of people not wanting to switch for solely more money because they expect to hate it at a potential new company.
  - dzikimarian 4y ago
    Yes and the same works for founders. If they expect, they will hate it after buyout, they will probably resist. But what if new opportunity is ok, gets you 30% more money, but your departure makes your current company very sad and perhaps worse place for everyone to work at? I wouldn't expect a lot of support for the idea of staying if you ask the internet for an opinion.
- TheOtherHobbes 4y ago
  The two aren't unrelated. In the distant past companies had professional and personal development programs. Some even had a commitment to try to avoid layoffs. When MBA culture took over in the 80s it became normal for companies to act like extraction machines. Employee loyalty crashed, with a corresponding increase in churn. Taking investment money makes it hard to create a humane culture. But smaller private companies do at least have the option to consider it.
__pache__ 4y ago
You try dealing with everyone's problems and hitting all the deadlines all the time..!
nunez 4y ago
If you don't, your successor will. Money makes the world go round.

tluyben2 4y ago

Same here. Got absorbed and it killed everything good about the place.

TranquilMarmot 4y ago

I was going to say the same thing. Worked at a mid-sized startup, great culture, amazing coworkers that I'm still friends with today. We did great work and got bought out by a large company who had promised not to mess with our culture too much. That didn't last very long haha

cutemonster 4y ago
> mess with our culture What did they change/do? If I may ask
- krageon 4y ago
  At a guess, having seen this before: - Paperwork - Extra managers - Lots of "stakeholder management"
  - cutemonster 4y ago
    Seems that was a good guess, have a look at the sibling reply :-)
- TranquilMarmot 4y ago
  It was a very slow creep of changes. For the first year, they really didn't change much (except gutted our health insurance plan and got rid of "unlimited" vacation). Eventually, they tried to get us to integrate with more and more of their other products, which introduced a TON of extra "stakeholders" on every single project. With every extra stakeholder they also had to introduce extra meetings and extra process until even making a small change felt like a massive chore. I went from merging dozens of changes a week to maybe one or two. Felt pretty claustrophobic after a bit so I ended up leaving to go somewhere smaller.
  - cutemonster 4y ago
    How interesting! (And sad, I hope that / guess that the new place is/was better) > integrate with more and more of their other products, which introduced a TON of extra "stakeholders" That scenario I hadn't heard about before. Good to know about that way for things to fail, too. If you haven't seen: "Excess management is costing the U.S. $3T per year (2016)" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34290539 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34290539