3 ms·

This is one of the things I love about small companies. There is literally nowhere to hide. Either you're helping to get things done, or you're creating barri

by techdmn 15y ago

This is one of the things I love about small companies. There is literally nowhere to hide. Either you're helping to get things done, or you're creating barriers. Of course small groups can be pathological too, but the visibility of BS is so much higher.

rdtsc 15y ago
Agreed. Larger companies can try to simulate this effect to a large extent by creating smaller teams. So visibility within a team is good. This can be taken to an extreme and lead so silo-fication so these teams are run almost like smaller companies, have their own hiring policy, budget, etc.
- fleitz 15y ago
  Silo-fication is good in a large company, you find a good silo and you make sure the rest of the dreck doesn't infect your group. If you've got a decent financial whiz who can end-run the bean counters in your silo even better. Take a look at a farm, what's outside the silo? Rats, rot, waste, what's inside the silo? Stuff you can sell for money that is well protected from the elements. In a large company you need to be a very adept bargainer / barterer to acquire all the resources you need despite the bean counter mentality.
- fab13n 15y ago
  But in the rest of the large company, there are hordes of pointy-haired bosses who are busy full-time trying to take up as much credit, budget and headcount as they can. They'll be drawn to your success as rats to food. It takes a lot of political savvy and energy to keep these freeloaders out of an effective team.
  - rdtsc 15y ago
    Exactly. It is not a perfect solution. Ideally there would be only 2 or 3 owners, and an accountant above all these silos. The bigger problem is that it would encourage bitter feeling between teams. If a silo is not successful and freeloaders are not pruned, then there will be a tendency for a silo to sabotage another silo if they think their collective job security is at risk. It is not a perfect solution. It can be approximated but still actually separate small companies is what makes more sense.

by techdmn 15y ago

rdtsc 15y ago

Agreed. Larger companies can try to simulate this effect to a large extent by creating smaller teams. So visibility within a team is good. This can be taken to an extreme and lead so silo-fication so these teams are run almost like smaller companies, have their own hiring policy, budget, etc.

fleitz 15y ago
Silo-fication is good in a large company, you find a good silo and you make sure the rest of the dreck doesn't infect your group. If you've got a decent financial whiz who can end-run the bean counters in your silo even better. Take a look at a farm, what's outside the silo? Rats, rot, waste, what's inside the silo? Stuff you can sell for money that is well protected from the elements. In a large company you need to be a very adept bargainer / barterer to acquire all the resources you need despite the bean counter mentality.
fab13n 15y ago
But in the rest of the large company, there are hordes of pointy-haired bosses who are busy full-time trying to take up as much credit, budget and headcount as they can. They'll be drawn to your success as rats to food. It takes a lot of political savvy and energy to keep these freeloaders out of an effective team.
- rdtsc 15y ago
  Exactly. It is not a perfect solution. Ideally there would be only 2 or 3 owners, and an accountant above all these silos. The bigger problem is that it would encourage bitter feeling between teams. If a silo is not successful and freeloaders are not pruned, then there will be a tendency for a silo to sabotage another silo if they think their collective job security is at risk. It is not a perfect solution. It can be approximated but still actually separate small companies is what makes more sense.