4 ms·

I disagree - as someone who has started up small companies and worked in megacorps, including FAANG and major banks, it’s entirely possible to build that intoxi

I disagree - as someone who has started up small companies and worked in megacorps, including FAANG and major banks, it’s entirely possible to build that intoxicating environment anywhere. It’s more about having a dynamic leader who assembles teams into collections of individuals who know precisely why they are there - and are given the work they excel at and the work they don’t the manager ensures someone who does helps them. Then the manager has to make sure the mission of the team is crystal clear in its value to the mission of the enterprise and the enterprises mission on earth. Finally the manager has to relentlessly break down barriers to production and impact. The arguments articulated are entirely false: ex. N^2 communications. This is reductionist and absurd. No team depends on every team in the org. Their domain is often fairly small and their adjacent teams extremely finite. The exception are “core teams” (which have been my specialty). However a well functioning core team doesn’t have n^2 communication overhead - they act as a concentrator and teams come to them - which is N. N can be large, in which case effective triage is crucial, but so is automation and self service, coherent platforms that are self documented, and some folks on the team that really really enjoy teaching. I’ve burned out though on building these teams. It’s absurdly hard work on management. But management is supposed to be absurdly hard work. My next gig is as a distinguished engineer at a late stage startup - back to the roots for a while.

lukaszkorecki 3y ago
> The arguments articulated are entirely false I’d would disagree - I had the exact experience that the autor described. But you are right on this point > it’s entirely possible to build that intoxicating environment anywhere. It’s more about having a dynamic leader who assembles teams into collections of individuals who know precisely why they are there I still think it’s related to size and bad incentives. I heard stories of people at FAANG that said that department X is like a startup but Y is soul sucking boredom
- fnordpiglet 3y ago
  Yes, thats correct. However the existence of X department at all refutes the authors premise and conclusion - and if X exists, it’s entirely possibly for Y to become better. Specifically this is entirely false due to the existence of X: > Is this preventable? I think not. I> f you look closely, all these problems fundamentally come from: > Decreased skin in the game, which reduces team alignment > N^2 communication, which creates need for managers and specialization, which reduces individual agency and breadth of learning > Reduced risk tolerance, which slows everything down > #1 and #2 are inevitable results of having more employees. #3 is an inevitable result of having more users, partially due to government regulation. I think a large company enables Y departments to exist without the company imploding immediately. Survivorship bias ensures most startups that last longer than a short amount of time to appear like X, when I know there are plenty of dysfunctional startups (a friend tells me Ghost is a great example). But due to the economics of a startup they evaporate quickly. In a large company Y departments can limp along for a long time or indefinitely because Y’s function needs to exist and the company can afford for it to suck ass to work there without it going out of business. However invariably X departments in large corporations are where the magic happens, where people want to work, and what moves the large enterprise forward. I’d also note that not everyone wants to work in a startup environment or are able to. Many engineers got into it for a good paycheck and don’t have much interest in anything particularly dynamic or engaging. They’re perfectly happy committing once a month and sitting in meetings. That’s not me, but I can also see when you build an army, you can’t build it out of special forces only. So, instead of saying X can’t exist, when it clearly does, I think it’s more useful to say you should be careful where you work in a large company and seek out actively the X departments by learning what Y departments look like and how to spot an X department.
  - dventimi 3y ago
    Would you describe your work at large companies as "intoxicating"?
    - fnordpiglet 3y ago
      Absolutely. The most exciting work I’ve done that has literally changed our world was done at systemically important multinational megacorps, where we created environments of unfettered innovation and an assembled teams of amazing individuals working as a coherent team. I had some really great leaders early in my career that showed it’s not only possible it’s the only way to enjoy any role at any company no matter the size. While you can’t clone their method to work in any environment, you can adapt their method to any environment with enough energy applied. The essential secrets are the ones I outlined. As an IC though it’s all about finding those leaders among the functionaries. Likewise, most of the startups I worked at were exciting by not intoxicating. They were relatively banal in their goals (change the world through prestige makeup e-commerce or something), their technology modern but not innovative, and the teams tight but not always coherent like a well oiled machine.
      - convolvatron 3y ago
        big companies have resources that give you reach (channels, marketing, human talent, legal, international presence, longer term investments) that you can never get with a smaller company. being able to apply them effectively can really be really frustrating though. and there is always the danger that your two year development arc will be demolished by 'shifts in overall strategy' or 'belt tightening' or a reorg.
        fnordpiglet 3y ago
        Yeh. But startups can and do fail, pivot, get restructured by their VC.
      - dventimi 3y ago
        > I had some really great leaders early in my career that showed it’s not only possible it’s the only way to enjoy any role at any company no matter the size. I'm not persuaded anyone is in a position to know that there's only one way for people to enjoy work, and to know what that one way is.
Throw10987 3y ago
I am the most senior engineering IC by position and years of experience at my current company in a 100+ person engineering group. The only problems I deal with are non technical and organisational in nature, despite on paper being expected to code 30 percent of the time.
- fnordpiglet 3y ago
  I’m sorry - I’d advise either making your role better or finding a better team. They exist.
  - Throw10987 3y ago
    Sound advice - currently going down the path of try to make the role better. It will however be a long journey, so need to work out whether I am sufficiently committed to the path. Also need to work out what the ejection criteria are, regardless of my commitment or not.
dventimi 3y ago
> The arguments are entirely false: ex N^2 communication. No team depends on every [other] team in the org. From the article: "You can’t just work on whatever you want; coordinating would be an O(N^2) communication mess." Evidently, you're agreeing with the article. So which part is false then?
- fnordpiglet 3y ago
  That coordinating is a quadratic mess, because no task requires bidirectional communicating with everyone else. I also disagree with all the other points they make about large companies. Not that there exists teams in large companies that suffer these issues, but that there exists no teams in large companies that don’t have these issues. I further extended it to say startups also aren’t without issue, and many are totally screwed up. They just don’t last very long.
  - dventimi 3y ago
    Let's set aside value judgements. After all, I don't know that small startups are optimal any more than you know that they aren't. Hopefully, what we can agree on is that small startups are different from large companies, even those with teams. Given that, someone who LIKES their small startup for whatever reason may feel it's lost its lustre when it evolves into a large company. For those people, this article offers an explanation for why that might be.
    - fnordpiglet 3y ago
      Or, it gives a guide for the problems to avoid and figure out strategies to solve for to avoid that path. But, yes, if the article were written that way, I would have agreed with it more. But it wasn’t :-)
      - dventimi 3y ago
        Hopefully you'll forgive me if I think it WAS written that way.
Aurornis 3y ago
> The arguments articulated are entirely false: ex. N^2 communications. This is reductionist and absurd I think you’re being unnecessarily harsh and reductionist of the article’s arguments. I’ve experienced exactly this failure mode in startups. The counter-example you described is an example of properly managing the N^2 complexity, not an example of it not existing.
- fnordpiglet 3y ago
  But it doesn’t exist. For any task the number of contact points is almost always fairly small. Just because the possible N might be large most are occluded by lack of relevance to any specific task. I would note that the author categorically says it’s not possible for a startup like environment to exist in a large company. That’s what I disagree with.
  - halkony 3y ago
    How have you developed a sense for organizational friction? What observations of culture can I use to make an educated guess about how easy it is to do my work? I agree with your point that a large org does not guarantee what the author claims. The author claims that the organizational friction can be measured by productivity, but you recognize culture as the better diagnostic criterion. The big O metaphor does not extend well to the argument, as you point out. I'm looking for hard hitting interview questions so I don't waste my time on "soul sucking" positions.
    - fnordpiglet 3y ago
      That’s the trick isn’t it? As “the boss” I’ve been able to self create my culture around me so it’s been easier. I have landed in management teams that were so oppressive I couldn’t even then. I’ve watched my peer leaders for signs. It’s very hard in an interview to know where you’re landing. A few things I’ve noticed that might help: * ask people in the team what they do and how they work, and how the team helps them work best. If they answer “oh I’m a programmer 2” and have wishy washy answers on the rest, that’s a bad sign. They’re being managed by a “by the book” manager. If they describe some complex role that isn’t out of the HR leveling guide, and a unique way of working that’s accommodated by the team, that’s a good sign. If you hear everyone in the team describing a role that’s unique and tailored to them, then that’s a great sign. * this is controversial but I think any org that slavishly follows modern day agile / scrum can not be dynamic. Nothing more to say other than back in the 90’s Bay Area hanging with thought works and those folks, agile was something very different than today. * the manager themselves should be very open to questions with thoughtful answers that aren’t rote. They should likewise spend more time understanding you than usual. They should be assessing your fit in their team - do you fill a gap? Do your weaknesses complement others strengths? Are you looking to turn the crank or are you looking to innovate? Also, be aware of yourself. Not everyone does well in a dynamic environment. It’s more chaotic and less structured. If you like clearly defined and regimented work, go for the clearly defined and regimented team.
angarg12 3y ago
I agree here. The opening statement of the article is simplistic and inaccurate. Sure, most big corp jobs might be rather dull, but you can lit that spark in the right circumstances.

lukaszkorecki 3y ago

> The arguments articulated are entirely false I’d would disagree - I had the exact experience that the autor described. But you are right on this point > it’s entirely possible to build that intoxicating environment anywhere. It’s more about having a dynamic leader who assembles teams into collections of individuals who know precisely why they are there I still think it’s related to size and bad incentives. I heard stories of people at FAANG that said that department X is like a startup but Y is soul sucking boredom

fnordpiglet 3y ago
Yes, thats correct. However the existence of X department at all refutes the authors premise and conclusion - and if X exists, it’s entirely possibly for Y to become better. Specifically this is entirely false due to the existence of X: > Is this preventable? I think not. I> f you look closely, all these problems fundamentally come from: > Decreased skin in the game, which reduces team alignment > N^2 communication, which creates need for managers and specialization, which reduces individual agency and breadth of learning > Reduced risk tolerance, which slows everything down > #1 and #2 are inevitable results of having more employees. #3 is an inevitable result of having more users, partially due to government regulation. I think a large company enables Y departments to exist without the company imploding immediately. Survivorship bias ensures most startups that last longer than a short amount of time to appear like X, when I know there are plenty of dysfunctional startups (a friend tells me Ghost is a great example). But due to the economics of a startup they evaporate quickly. In a large company Y departments can limp along for a long time or indefinitely because Y’s function needs to exist and the company can afford for it to suck ass to work there without it going out of business. However invariably X departments in large corporations are where the magic happens, where people want to work, and what moves the large enterprise forward. I’d also note that not everyone wants to work in a startup environment or are able to. Many engineers got into it for a good paycheck and don’t have much interest in anything particularly dynamic or engaging. They’re perfectly happy committing once a month and sitting in meetings. That’s not me, but I can also see when you build an army, you can’t build it out of special forces only. So, instead of saying X can’t exist, when it clearly does, I think it’s more useful to say you should be careful where you work in a large company and seek out actively the X departments by learning what Y departments look like and how to spot an X department.
- dventimi 3y ago
  Would you describe your work at large companies as "intoxicating"?
  - fnordpiglet 3y ago
    Absolutely. The most exciting work I’ve done that has literally changed our world was done at systemically important multinational megacorps, where we created environments of unfettered innovation and an assembled teams of amazing individuals working as a coherent team. I had some really great leaders early in my career that showed it’s not only possible it’s the only way to enjoy any role at any company no matter the size. While you can’t clone their method to work in any environment, you can adapt their method to any environment with enough energy applied. The essential secrets are the ones I outlined. As an IC though it’s all about finding those leaders among the functionaries. Likewise, most of the startups I worked at were exciting by not intoxicating. They were relatively banal in their goals (change the world through prestige makeup e-commerce or something), their technology modern but not innovative, and the teams tight but not always coherent like a well oiled machine.
    - convolvatron 3y ago
      big companies have resources that give you reach (channels, marketing, human talent, legal, international presence, longer term investments) that you can never get with a smaller company. being able to apply them effectively can really be really frustrating though. and there is always the danger that your two year development arc will be demolished by 'shifts in overall strategy' or 'belt tightening' or a reorg.
      - fnordpiglet 3y ago
        Yeh. But startups can and do fail, pivot, get restructured by their VC.
    - dventimi 3y ago
      > I had some really great leaders early in my career that showed it’s not only possible it’s the only way to enjoy any role at any company no matter the size. I'm not persuaded anyone is in a position to know that there's only one way for people to enjoy work, and to know what that one way is.

Throw10987 3y ago

I am the most senior engineering IC by position and years of experience at my current company in a 100+ person engineering group. The only problems I deal with are non technical and organisational in nature, despite on paper being expected to code 30 percent of the time.

fnordpiglet 3y ago
I’m sorry - I’d advise either making your role better or finding a better team. They exist.
- Throw10987 3y ago
  Sound advice - currently going down the path of try to make the role better. It will however be a long journey, so need to work out whether I am sufficiently committed to the path. Also need to work out what the ejection criteria are, regardless of my commitment or not.

dventimi 3y ago

> The arguments are entirely false: ex N^2 communication. No team depends on every [other] team in the org. From the article: "You can’t just work on whatever you want; coordinating would be an O(N^2) communication mess." Evidently, you're agreeing with the article. So which part is false then?

fnordpiglet 3y ago
That coordinating is a quadratic mess, because no task requires bidirectional communicating with everyone else. I also disagree with all the other points they make about large companies. Not that there exists teams in large companies that suffer these issues, but that there exists no teams in large companies that don’t have these issues. I further extended it to say startups also aren’t without issue, and many are totally screwed up. They just don’t last very long.
- dventimi 3y ago
  Let's set aside value judgements. After all, I don't know that small startups are optimal any more than you know that they aren't. Hopefully, what we can agree on is that small startups are different from large companies, even those with teams. Given that, someone who LIKES their small startup for whatever reason may feel it's lost its lustre when it evolves into a large company. For those people, this article offers an explanation for why that might be.
  - fnordpiglet 3y ago
    Or, it gives a guide for the problems to avoid and figure out strategies to solve for to avoid that path. But, yes, if the article were written that way, I would have agreed with it more. But it wasn’t :-)
    - dventimi 3y ago
      Hopefully you'll forgive me if I think it WAS written that way.

Aurornis 3y ago

> The arguments articulated are entirely false: ex. N^2 communications. This is reductionist and absurd I think you’re being unnecessarily harsh and reductionist of the article’s arguments. I’ve experienced exactly this failure mode in startups. The counter-example you described is an example of properly managing the N^2 complexity, not an example of it not existing.

fnordpiglet 3y ago
But it doesn’t exist. For any task the number of contact points is almost always fairly small. Just because the possible N might be large most are occluded by lack of relevance to any specific task. I would note that the author categorically says it’s not possible for a startup like environment to exist in a large company. That’s what I disagree with.
- halkony 3y ago
  How have you developed a sense for organizational friction? What observations of culture can I use to make an educated guess about how easy it is to do my work? I agree with your point that a large org does not guarantee what the author claims. The author claims that the organizational friction can be measured by productivity, but you recognize culture as the better diagnostic criterion. The big O metaphor does not extend well to the argument, as you point out. I'm looking for hard hitting interview questions so I don't waste my time on "soul sucking" positions.
  - fnordpiglet 3y ago
    That’s the trick isn’t it? As “the boss” I’ve been able to self create my culture around me so it’s been easier. I have landed in management teams that were so oppressive I couldn’t even then. I’ve watched my peer leaders for signs. It’s very hard in an interview to know where you’re landing. A few things I’ve noticed that might help: * ask people in the team what they do and how they work, and how the team helps them work best. If they answer “oh I’m a programmer 2” and have wishy washy answers on the rest, that’s a bad sign. They’re being managed by a “by the book” manager. If they describe some complex role that isn’t out of the HR leveling guide, and a unique way of working that’s accommodated by the team, that’s a good sign. If you hear everyone in the team describing a role that’s unique and tailored to them, then that’s a great sign. * this is controversial but I think any org that slavishly follows modern day agile / scrum can not be dynamic. Nothing more to say other than back in the 90’s Bay Area hanging with thought works and those folks, agile was something very different than today. * the manager themselves should be very open to questions with thoughtful answers that aren’t rote. They should likewise spend more time understanding you than usual. They should be assessing your fit in their team - do you fill a gap? Do your weaknesses complement others strengths? Are you looking to turn the crank or are you looking to innovate? Also, be aware of yourself. Not everyone does well in a dynamic environment. It’s more chaotic and less structured. If you like clearly defined and regimented work, go for the clearly defined and regimented team.

angarg12 3y ago

I agree here. The opening statement of the article is simplistic and inaccurate. Sure, most big corp jobs might be rather dull, but you can lit that spark in the right circumstances.