4 ms·

"I'm 95% convinced that companies larger than 50 people can't acquire truly outstanding people without having a decentralized system that doesn't reward power g

"I'm 95% convinced that companies larger than 50 people can't acquire truly outstanding people without having a decentralized system that doesn't reward power grabs and people pyramids." I wonder if it's even possible to have a system that doesn't reward power grabs and pyramids at a certain company size. Maybe the number isn't 50; maybe it's slightly lower or slightly higher. But certainly above Dunbar's number, we start to see organizations where departmental siloing and fiefdoms emerge. Politics seems inevitable in these situations, and the people who a) want to play the game, and b) are good at playing the game are the people who win the game. The game exists because all it takes is one or two people to will it into existence. If a power vacuum opens up, or if enough competing VPs and Directors emerge, then someone is going to try to get ahead through politics. The only way to counter that is to play politics. Office politics, as a whole, is an emergent property of the individual players' political strategies and counter-strategies. I have yet to work for, or with, a large company where office politics wasn't a significant factor. It's a bigger problem at some companies than at others. But it's always there. It can never be completely curtailed; it can only be mitigated. The best way to mitigate politics is to implement communications, reward, promotion, and advancement policies that don't incentivize politics as much as other systems might. This is a nontrivial challenge, especially at big scale.

mwhite 13y ago
You need cops: http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2013/04/30/gervais-macleod-23-managers-mentors-executives-cops-and-thugs/ http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2013/04/30/gervais-macle...
RyanZAG 13y ago
I wonder if the solution here is to simply not grow the company that large in the first place? Usually what happens is a company gets a new product idea or a big surge in new customers and does not have a process in place to deal with it through automation and existing systems. The easiest solution is to just hire new employees and let them work it out - it scales very well at first glance as the original employees can continue to work on improving and automating what they already have. Is it the best solution though? If the product is good, slowing down on features or customers seems fairly acceptable until you can cope with them. It's obviously not going to fly with a VC funded firm. For a bootstrapped or lifestyle business it might be the better long run approach, and I believe most people really want a lifestyle business even if they think they don't.
pronik 13y ago
> I wonder if it's even possible to have a system that doesn't reward power grabs and pyramids at a certain company size. Somewhat related: I used to believe that if some company could manage being a BigCorp and still keeping the lean startuppy feeling in terms of work conditions, individual creativity and management transparency, that would be Google. I don't know whether they ever tried, but from what I hear and see (from the outside, never been even close to being inside) they haven't succeeded and became a by-the-book BigCorp with the usual problems.
- RyanZAG 13y ago
  Reading about management attempts back when Google was starting, they definitely did try. I'm not sure if they'd admit it, but I think they failed spectacularly. I'd even go as far as to say that if the people trying couldn't get it to work it might actually be impossible to create a large company that isn't a 'BigCorp'. There are too many barriers - social, legal and technical.

mwhite 13y ago

You need cops: http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2013/04/30/gervais-macleod-23-managers-mentors-executives-cops-and-thugs/ http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2013/04/30/gervais-macle...

RyanZAG 13y ago

I wonder if the solution here is to simply not grow the company that large in the first place? Usually what happens is a company gets a new product idea or a big surge in new customers and does not have a process in place to deal with it through automation and existing systems. The easiest solution is to just hire new employees and let them work it out - it scales very well at first glance as the original employees can continue to work on improving and automating what they already have. Is it the best solution though? If the product is good, slowing down on features or customers seems fairly acceptable until you can cope with them. It's obviously not going to fly with a VC funded firm. For a bootstrapped or lifestyle business it might be the better long run approach, and I believe most people really want a lifestyle business even if they think they don't.

pronik 13y ago

> I wonder if it's even possible to have a system that doesn't reward power grabs and pyramids at a certain company size. Somewhat related: I used to believe that if some company could manage being a BigCorp and still keeping the lean startuppy feeling in terms of work conditions, individual creativity and management transparency, that would be Google. I don't know whether they ever tried, but from what I hear and see (from the outside, never been even close to being inside) they haven't succeeded and became a by-the-book BigCorp with the usual problems.

RyanZAG 13y ago
Reading about management attempts back when Google was starting, they definitely did try. I'm not sure if they'd admit it, but I think they failed spectacularly. I'd even go as far as to say that if the people trying couldn't get it to work it might actually be impossible to create a large company that isn't a 'BigCorp'. There are too many barriers - social, legal and technical.