3 ms·

This is an extremely negative view on what it takes to run a large scale organization.

by tbe-stream 2y ago

charlie0 2y ago
No, he's right on because of power laws. Sure, some corps will be run really well, but most corps will be mediocre.
- pixelatedindex 2y ago
  Power laws? Could you please elaborate? I’m curious.
  - bluepizza 2y ago
    Managers only hire and reward based on loyalty and threats in these highly political environments. It is very common to see a decent director with very weak managers under him, to ensure that nobody is a threat to his position. Mediocre corporations work in a very different way from results oriented high performance companies. In mediocre places, games of power rule the place, even if it doesn't make sense economically.
    - charlie0 2y ago
      Different definition of power law, but still very applicable to this case.
  - charlie0 2y ago
    On any given dimension, everyone/everything cannot possibly be above average. If you take competence, most companies will be mediocre. At best you have a bell curve, at worst it's an exponential curve with only a very small amount of high competence.
bluepizza 2y ago
Hacker News folks tend to see the best side of corporations, working for well managed, innovation driven, purpose oriented places. It's a privilege. Most corporations are not Google, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, etc - which a lot of us either work for, or work for companies that were heavily inspired by these top companies.
- steveBK123 2y ago
  Yes, past a certain point you are operating to reduce variance. There's only so many top 1% players, and if you aren't able to pay as well as the GOOG/MSFT/AMZN/AAPLs of the world, then your not going to be able to hire 1000s and 1000s of them. So most employers are not able to be as selective, especially at scale. Which means they are hiring for B+ players and putting in a lot of "administrivia" to prevent screwups. It's more about hiring for average outcomes and avoiding the downside. Scrappy startups pre-scale can be an exception in that they have equity and independence to offer to hires in lieu of top tier compensation. Both of those of course are drastically reduced when you have 10s, 100s, 1000s and then 10,000s of employees. It's not a diss on anyone, so much as the natural order of things.
- BehindBlueEyes 2y ago
  Even those corporations aren't homogenous in how well they are managed and have a lot of "second class citizen" to whom the privilege doesn't have to apply (managed services, external dev partners, armies of contractors...)
nunez 2y ago
But it's reality
BehindBlueEyes 2y ago
Sounds realistic in my experience... Maybe not everywhere but definitely a thing.

This is an extremely negative view on what it takes to run a large scale organization.

charlie0 2y ago

No, he's right on because of power laws. Sure, some corps will be run really well, but most corps will be mediocre.

pixelatedindex 2y ago
Power laws? Could you please elaborate? I’m curious.
- bluepizza 2y ago
  Managers only hire and reward based on loyalty and threats in these highly political environments. It is very common to see a decent director with very weak managers under him, to ensure that nobody is a threat to his position. Mediocre corporations work in a very different way from results oriented high performance companies. In mediocre places, games of power rule the place, even if it doesn't make sense economically.
  - charlie0 2y ago
    Different definition of power law, but still very applicable to this case.
- charlie0 2y ago
  On any given dimension, everyone/everything cannot possibly be above average. If you take competence, most companies will be mediocre. At best you have a bell curve, at worst it's an exponential curve with only a very small amount of high competence.

bluepizza 2y ago

Hacker News folks tend to see the best side of corporations, working for well managed, innovation driven, purpose oriented places. It's a privilege. Most corporations are not Google, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, etc - which a lot of us either work for, or work for companies that were heavily inspired by these top companies.

steveBK123 2y ago
Yes, past a certain point you are operating to reduce variance. There's only so many top 1% players, and if you aren't able to pay as well as the GOOG/MSFT/AMZN/AAPLs of the world, then your not going to be able to hire 1000s and 1000s of them. So most employers are not able to be as selective, especially at scale. Which means they are hiring for B+ players and putting in a lot of "administrivia" to prevent screwups. It's more about hiring for average outcomes and avoiding the downside. Scrappy startups pre-scale can be an exception in that they have equity and independence to offer to hires in lieu of top tier compensation. Both of those of course are drastically reduced when you have 10s, 100s, 1000s and then 10,000s of employees. It's not a diss on anyone, so much as the natural order of things.
BehindBlueEyes 2y ago
Even those corporations aren't homogenous in how well they are managed and have a lot of "second class citizen" to whom the privilege doesn't have to apply (managed services, external dev partners, armies of contractors...)

nunez 2y ago

But it's reality

BehindBlueEyes 2y ago

Sounds realistic in my experience... Maybe not everywhere but definitely a thing.