3 ms·

In my experience a lot of hiring in those big or publicly traded companies is to "build the structure to get promoted". When you're big, investors and banks an

by artyom 2y ago

In my experience a lot of hiring in those big or publicly traded companies is to "build the structure to get promoted". When you're big, investors and banks and auditors don't like flat structures with a lot of individual contributors. A vertical structure is a must to go public. The rest is people playing the game they're forced into.

FirmwareBurner 2y ago
>In my experience a lot of hiring in those big or publicly traded companies is to "build the structure to get promoted". This comment should be at the top. Not just at the top of the thread, but at the top of HN homepage. It's how during the pandemic many companies just suddenly doubled their headcount without any extra output in products or quality, and now we're seeing somewhat of a correction to that with all the layoffs. It's how you see people in tech hubs climb to the top of some large companies despite never having worked longer than a year at any company. Nothing against job hopping but I ask myself what skills and value people like that actually bring, who have 10x 1-year of experience, as they're never in a place long enough get to see the end results of their work and decisions, if they're good or bad, they barely pass the onboarding stage. It's also how many of these large orgs end up failing long term. Look at Intel now, or german auto makers, as the goal of each worker there becomes gaming the system to getting yourself a promotion at the cost of the org as a whole, instead of adding value to get a promotion, since the org is very bad at setting the right goals and incentives for the workers. Google and the like who have a monopoly with an impossible moat or an infinite money cheat can resist this enshitification much much longer than the rest of the companies. I'm not even mad, in the end most people are just playing the game, they don't get to write the rules of the game, and the ones who do are out of touch with reality so they can't be mad when people try to game it for their personal advantage.
fakedang 2y ago
> When you're big, investors and banks and auditors don't like flat structures with a lot of individual contributors. A vertical structure is a must to go public. The rest is people playing the game they're forced into. Might be the first time I've heard this hot take out. What makes you think banks care what the org structure is for a public company? Banks don't care for size as long as the company is fiscally prudent and can prove it. They do check silly metrics sometimes like revenue per employee, but they really don't give a damn how your company is structured. By that metric, 2012 frat club Facebook wouldn't have been touched - yet they had like 10 investment banks frontrunning their book. In fact, I'd say 2012 Facebook IPO was the trigger for a lot of banks not caring about such silly things. As a counterpoint to your argument, there are 200-500 employee biotechs not generating meaningful revenue that are trading publicly (and which went public without a SPAC play). The decision on who gets to go public falls on the exchange, not on the banks - they simply sell your stock to their investor list, and a flat structure with fewer than needed employees is actually a great selling point for a bank.

by artyom 2y ago

FirmwareBurner 2y ago

>In my experience a lot of hiring in those big or publicly traded companies is to "build the structure to get promoted". This comment should be at the top. Not just at the top of the thread, but at the top of HN homepage. It's how during the pandemic many companies just suddenly doubled their headcount without any extra output in products or quality, and now we're seeing somewhat of a correction to that with all the layoffs. It's how you see people in tech hubs climb to the top of some large companies despite never having worked longer than a year at any company. Nothing against job hopping but I ask myself what skills and value people like that actually bring, who have 10x 1-year of experience, as they're never in a place long enough get to see the end results of their work and decisions, if they're good or bad, they barely pass the onboarding stage. It's also how many of these large orgs end up failing long term. Look at Intel now, or german auto makers, as the goal of each worker there becomes gaming the system to getting yourself a promotion at the cost of the org as a whole, instead of adding value to get a promotion, since the org is very bad at setting the right goals and incentives for the workers. Google and the like who have a monopoly with an impossible moat or an infinite money cheat can resist this enshitification much much longer than the rest of the companies. I'm not even mad, in the end most people are just playing the game, they don't get to write the rules of the game, and the ones who do are out of touch with reality so they can't be mad when people try to game it for their personal advantage.

fakedang 2y ago

> When you're big, investors and banks and auditors don't like flat structures with a lot of individual contributors. A vertical structure is a must to go public. The rest is people playing the game they're forced into. Might be the first time I've heard this hot take out. What makes you think banks care what the org structure is for a public company? Banks don't care for size as long as the company is fiscally prudent and can prove it. They do check silly metrics sometimes like revenue per employee, but they really don't give a damn how your company is structured. By that metric, 2012 frat club Facebook wouldn't have been touched - yet they had like 10 investment banks frontrunning their book. In fact, I'd say 2012 Facebook IPO was the trigger for a lot of banks not caring about such silly things. As a counterpoint to your argument, there are 200-500 employee biotechs not generating meaningful revenue that are trading publicly (and which went public without a SPAC play). The decision on who gets to go public falls on the exchange, not on the banks - they simply sell your stock to their investor list, and a flat structure with fewer than needed employees is actually a great selling point for a bank.