3 ms·

As the other commenter mentioned, silos are not inherently bad. Indeed, in a large company, they're necessary to avoid dysfunction. You want stable groups of co

As the other commenter mentioned, silos are not inherently bad. Indeed, in a large company, they're necessary to avoid dysfunction. You want stable groups of competent people who share priorities and lore, who own well-defined parts of the business, and who have the autonomy to set the strategy for their thing. "Founder-led" companies are more dynamic mostly because they're smaller. Once they get to 100,000 employees, they will not be distinguishable from Google, Apple, or Microsoft.

yojo 3y ago
Maybe? I'm having a hard time finding a contemporary example. Bezos bowed out (though Amazon culture was famously bad for years), and even Facebook doesn't have 100k employees. My point though is there is a difference between having a leader who got there by politicking versus a leader who got there by building a great company. They're both going to have different strengths and weaknesses, but there's at least a chance the founder isn't going to tolerate the sycophants. An example: I was at Google 2005-2008. My manager's manager's manager was one of the early empire builders. He hired like crazy with no plan at all for the people he was hiring, and kept getting promoted for managing such a rapidly growing org. Eventually he rose high enough up that someone near the top realized what was going on, and promptly fired the guy, leaving behind a fair-sized mess as folks tried to figure out what to do with all his hires. From what I've read lately, if this guy had just shown up to Google a few years later, he'd still be getting promoted.
- esafak 3y ago
  Executives need to observe the whole organization, not just their direct reports. How far from the top was he when he started empire building? You make it sound like it was already very hierarchical, when Google always advertised itself as a relatively flat company.
hnick 3y ago
Sounds like encapsulation in OO. You don't want to let other people poke around in your bits except through well defined interfaces.

yojo 3y ago

Maybe? I'm having a hard time finding a contemporary example. Bezos bowed out (though Amazon culture was famously bad for years), and even Facebook doesn't have 100k employees. My point though is there is a difference between having a leader who got there by politicking versus a leader who got there by building a great company. They're both going to have different strengths and weaknesses, but there's at least a chance the founder isn't going to tolerate the sycophants. An example: I was at Google 2005-2008. My manager's manager's manager was one of the early empire builders. He hired like crazy with no plan at all for the people he was hiring, and kept getting promoted for managing such a rapidly growing org. Eventually he rose high enough up that someone near the top realized what was going on, and promptly fired the guy, leaving behind a fair-sized mess as folks tried to figure out what to do with all his hires. From what I've read lately, if this guy had just shown up to Google a few years later, he'd still be getting promoted.

esafak 3y ago
Executives need to observe the whole organization, not just their direct reports. How far from the top was he when he started empire building? You make it sound like it was already very hierarchical, when Google always advertised itself as a relatively flat company.

hnick 3y ago

Sounds like encapsulation in OO. You don't want to let other people poke around in your bits except through well defined interfaces.