6 ms·

It almost feels like the "efficiencies of scale" you get from large organisations (e.g. specialised people for recruitment, people matters, quality assurance, u

by hliyan 3y ago

It almost feels like the "efficiencies of scale" you get from large organisations (e.g. specialised people for recruitment, people matters, quality assurance, user research etc.) are not really efficiencies. Perhaps it's better to grow the organisation by repeatedly cloning the smallest effective team you ever had, rather than creating a more "efficient" organisational structure. How those "mini-companies" communicate with each other efficiently -- another matter.

K0balt 3y ago
This is an intriguing idea. I wonder if the paradigm has a name or a following?
- bombcar 3y ago
  Isn’t that basically what franchising is?
  - K0balt 3y ago
    Hmm, that is an interesting parallel. I think it misses the mark somehow though. Idk why people don’t like the question, I’m actually looking for a developed model/ paradigm around this concept. No sense reinventing the wheel.
srcnkcl 3y ago
k8s the company, infinitely scalable
toyg 3y ago
This is what the author suggests towards the end of the piece, and points out some issues with it.
- hliyan 3y ago
  Yes. Maybe one can design some sort of internally budgeted token based economy between these internal teams (distinct from mere gamification). But based on past experiences, I worry that that will lead to unanticipated perverse incentives.
fnordpiglet 3y ago
The challenge is cloning teams is impossible. Teams are a collection of individuals. It’s like saying the way to win the World Cup is to simply clone the best team. I think the best way to scale is to build processes that reinforce the traits you want in a team, and hire managers who understand teams are collections of unique individuals, as is the manager. The manager should be free to manage their people in a way that optimizes delivery and reduces churn. Between teams there should be a very high bar for quality of communication and delivery. The culture of the organization should be built around respect for each person hired and a relentless focus on ensuring individuals end up in teams that they are effective in and are therefore maximally effective as teams.
- flir 3y ago
  > the way to win the World Cup is to simply clone the best team The startup that does that should absolutely be called "Boys from Brazil".
fhd2 3y ago
I think it's about more than just efficiencies of scale. You kinda play by different rules at a certain scale (not just based on employee count, also based on revenue), and suddenly you're subject to a lot more regulatory scrutiny. Plus, as a company becomes more valuable and attracts shareholders and managers with lower appetite for risk, a lot of money needs to be poured into risk management and avoidance. At a previous company, a competitor was blatantly breaking the law to solve user needs we couldn't solve without breaking it as well. Somehow they got away with it, presumably because they were tiny and (to my knowledge) unprofitable. Now, if it wasn't for all that, there's still the problem that, from personal experience, most employees don't invest as much energy as a founder would - which is perfectly understandable. As the founder to employee ratio gets smaller, you find yourself hiring three people to do a job you could do yourself, just to make sure it gets done reliably and timely. In a smaller startup, early hires are more similar to founders because they're close to them and stand to gain a lot if the company succeeds and grows. For employee #213, they sell 40 hours of work per week and their fixed salary is all they really stand to get out of it. So while I like the romantic idea of having a large company comprised of multiple independent startups, I haven't seen that work and I can barely picture it work :( One can get somewhat close to this with the right organisational structure (e.g. sacrificing efficiencies of scale for team autonomy where feasible), but it's not even close to the same thing.
- naijaboiler 3y ago
  You're correct. It doesn't work. A lot of ails are necessarily inherent in scaling up. Once you get to 80ish, you just necessarily have to change your setup
VHRanger 3y ago
That's what the mobile game studio supercell did initially (hence the name): divide the company into a bunch of 15-25 person indie studios. It also eventually became a monolithic org. Same with Valve and flat org structures. Once something scales enough it becomes the blob, like everything else.
- disgruntledphd2 3y ago
  And Supercell are probably one of the most successful mobile gaming companies ever.
  - VHRanger 3y ago
    Yeah they held off becoming a blob for a solid decade
    - disgruntledphd2 3y ago
      I met them back in 2014 when they were making insane amounts of money from Clash of Clans and their DS who was building LTV models for the game was doing it as a part of his job. In lots of other (worse) companies they had huge teams delivering a lot less.
KnobbleMcKnees 3y ago
I agree and this is a practical method that I've seen work well in several companies I've worked for. However I think there's a bigger problem that contributes to the loss of "spark" that the author strangely didn't address at all. The fruits of labor grow ever higher. By which I mean: In the early days of a startup the problem space is ripe and plentiful, the impact you can have is outsized, and the pool of people with which to share it is the smallest it will ever be. As a company grows, all three of these factors are subject to strain. The problem space becomes sparser, outsized impacts are recognised further up the ever-growing hierarchy, and the pool of people with which you're sharing your impact becomes larger and recognition becomes shorter lived and more diffuse.
- alain94040 3y ago
  There is also a dynamic aspect to that: the original team who started the startup has battle scars, they used to take risk, but now they have a natural incentive to be more conservative, preserve the way things were done. Rands has a great article on that topic well worth reading: https://randsinrepose.com/archives/stables-and-volatiles/ https://randsinrepose.com/archives/stables-and-volatiles/ It matches my experience with startups experiencing challenges as they grow.
notacoward 3y ago
Adding people/roles can be beneficial when it frees other people from onerous or distracting work. When it increases onerous or distracting work for everyone else, that's a problem. To a large extent, the art of managing growth is finding ways to liberate everyone instead of handcuffing them.

by hliyan 3y ago

K0balt 3y ago

This is an intriguing idea. I wonder if the paradigm has a name or a following?

bombcar 3y ago
Isn’t that basically what franchising is?
- K0balt 3y ago
  Hmm, that is an interesting parallel. I think it misses the mark somehow though. Idk why people don’t like the question, I’m actually looking for a developed model/ paradigm around this concept. No sense reinventing the wheel.

srcnkcl 3y ago

k8s the company, infinitely scalable

toyg 3y ago

This is what the author suggests towards the end of the piece, and points out some issues with it.

hliyan 3y ago
Yes. Maybe one can design some sort of internally budgeted token based economy between these internal teams (distinct from mere gamification). But based on past experiences, I worry that that will lead to unanticipated perverse incentives.

fnordpiglet 3y ago

The challenge is cloning teams is impossible. Teams are a collection of individuals. It’s like saying the way to win the World Cup is to simply clone the best team. I think the best way to scale is to build processes that reinforce the traits you want in a team, and hire managers who understand teams are collections of unique individuals, as is the manager. The manager should be free to manage their people in a way that optimizes delivery and reduces churn. Between teams there should be a very high bar for quality of communication and delivery. The culture of the organization should be built around respect for each person hired and a relentless focus on ensuring individuals end up in teams that they are effective in and are therefore maximally effective as teams.

flir 3y ago
> the way to win the World Cup is to simply clone the best team The startup that does that should absolutely be called "Boys from Brazil".

fhd2 3y ago

I think it's about more than just efficiencies of scale. You kinda play by different rules at a certain scale (not just based on employee count, also based on revenue), and suddenly you're subject to a lot more regulatory scrutiny. Plus, as a company becomes more valuable and attracts shareholders and managers with lower appetite for risk, a lot of money needs to be poured into risk management and avoidance. At a previous company, a competitor was blatantly breaking the law to solve user needs we couldn't solve without breaking it as well. Somehow they got away with it, presumably because they were tiny and (to my knowledge) unprofitable. Now, if it wasn't for all that, there's still the problem that, from personal experience, most employees don't invest as much energy as a founder would - which is perfectly understandable. As the founder to employee ratio gets smaller, you find yourself hiring three people to do a job you could do yourself, just to make sure it gets done reliably and timely. In a smaller startup, early hires are more similar to founders because they're close to them and stand to gain a lot if the company succeeds and grows. For employee #213, they sell 40 hours of work per week and their fixed salary is all they really stand to get out of it. So while I like the romantic idea of having a large company comprised of multiple independent startups, I haven't seen that work and I can barely picture it work :( One can get somewhat close to this with the right organisational structure (e.g. sacrificing efficiencies of scale for team autonomy where feasible), but it's not even close to the same thing.

naijaboiler 3y ago
You're correct. It doesn't work. A lot of ails are necessarily inherent in scaling up. Once you get to 80ish, you just necessarily have to change your setup

VHRanger 3y ago

That's what the mobile game studio supercell did initially (hence the name): divide the company into a bunch of 15-25 person indie studios. It also eventually became a monolithic org. Same with Valve and flat org structures. Once something scales enough it becomes the blob, like everything else.

disgruntledphd2 3y ago
And Supercell are probably one of the most successful mobile gaming companies ever.
- VHRanger 3y ago
  Yeah they held off becoming a blob for a solid decade
  - disgruntledphd2 3y ago
    I met them back in 2014 when they were making insane amounts of money from Clash of Clans and their DS who was building LTV models for the game was doing it as a part of his job. In lots of other (worse) companies they had huge teams delivering a lot less.

KnobbleMcKnees 3y ago

I agree and this is a practical method that I've seen work well in several companies I've worked for. However I think there's a bigger problem that contributes to the loss of "spark" that the author strangely didn't address at all. The fruits of labor grow ever higher. By which I mean: In the early days of a startup the problem space is ripe and plentiful, the impact you can have is outsized, and the pool of people with which to share it is the smallest it will ever be. As a company grows, all three of these factors are subject to strain. The problem space becomes sparser, outsized impacts are recognised further up the ever-growing hierarchy, and the pool of people with which you're sharing your impact becomes larger and recognition becomes shorter lived and more diffuse.

alain94040 3y ago
There is also a dynamic aspect to that: the original team who started the startup has battle scars, they used to take risk, but now they have a natural incentive to be more conservative, preserve the way things were done. Rands has a great article on that topic well worth reading: https://randsinrepose.com/archives/stables-and-volatiles/ https://randsinrepose.com/archives/stables-and-volatiles/ It matches my experience with startups experiencing challenges as they grow.

notacoward 3y ago

Adding people/roles can be beneficial when it frees other people from onerous or distracting work. When it increases onerous or distracting work for everyone else, that's a problem. To a large extent, the art of managing growth is finding ways to liberate everyone instead of handcuffing them.