3 ms·

> 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’

> 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.

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.