[oferka]

Not sure about the entire industry, but at least for the companies I worked in/with during the last few years, it's the opposite. In most investment rounds/IPO/acquisition scenarios, high HC is a disadvantage. I have seen investors that are actually treating the revenue per HC number as a performance indicator.

[gt565k]

Exactly! The idea that having more employees is better is complete BS.

We all know that start-ups work because they are small and focus on problem solving, not dealing with bureaucracy and administrative inefficiencies.

Look at the whatsapp acquisition. It was touted so much because the company had only 50 engineers.

High revenue per headcount is a good indicator of successful execution, good hiring practices and organizational structure, and a solid culture.

If you can achieve the same results with 5 people that a company needs 20 people for, you'll obviously be the more profitable and desirable company for a VC to invest in.

[qznc]

You have to distinguish between the incentives for the company and individuals.

For example, it makes little sense for a company to use a different web framework every year. It makes sense for individual developers to accumulate a large list for their resume.

Likewise, it makes not sense for a company to optimize for a large headcount. It does make sense for an individual manager because leading 100 people looks better than 20 on his resume.

[jokethrowaway]

Bad for the company, good for middle managers that can brag about managing 50 eng at their next gig