4 ms·
> The smaller the company, the better. I disagree. There is a lot of variance in small companies. There is a lot of variance in large companies as well (the
by whiplash451 3y ago
> The smaller the company, the better.
I disagree. There is a lot of variance in small companies. There is a lot of variance in large companies as well (the famous "it will really depend on which team you belong to").
I really think there is little correlation between company size and your experience at such company. The predictive variables (if they ever exist) are elsewhere.
- jokethrowaway 3y agoTrue, the difference is you are more likely to get the experience you've heard from reviews in a small company vs complete unknown in a big company (may be great, may be crap depending on your line of management) In my network we keep joining the same (relative small) companies because we roughly know the culture we can shape and create an environment
- ponector 3y agoIn smaller company you are closer to person with the decision power. It is much easier to build closer relationship and have high visibility to avoid being laid off.
- gorbachev 3y agoCompanies, of all sizes, are run by people. If those people are assholes, the size of the company doesn't matter, your employment in that company will suck.
- rafabulsing 3y agoWhile that is true, if any given person has some X% chance of being an asshole, the more layers of management there are above you, the higher the chances you are at the mercy of at least one (and possibly multiple) asshole(s).
- whiplash451 3y agoYou could use the exact same argument in the other direction: the more layers of management there are above you, the higher the chances a high-level managers will protect your team from armageddon. Sometimes, it's only a matter of a single email or a chat with a CxO. I stand by my original point: no obvious correlation between company size and quality of life inside it.