Yeah, I'm at a startup that's rapidly growing, and is adding more process. I don't feel like it's overmanaged, I don't generally need to pull in my manager or skip. But I can imagine giving a similar response, the major difference is that the team I'm on doesn't really have official processes set up.
The main problem is that the team has a lot of work to do. So simple tasks might take awhile if they aren't high priority. If I got significant push back, I'd talk to my manager or skip. Because doing it sooner would mean pushing back other high priority requests.
And when it reaches that stage, the OP can nope out to another up and coming startup. There's no reason someone needs to stay at a company through its whole lifecycle.
do you work there? would be interesting to hear how you believe it's different and why. if not, then I think "just fine" is probably conjecture, and I'd imagine they have the same problems as everyone else at scale.
SpaceX clearly has no problems innovating and moving forward fast. Something you don’t see in more bureaucratic organisations. I saw an interview with astronauts who has worked for both NASA and SpaceX and they said that the big difference was that what would take a year for NASA took a day for SpaceX.
Sorry to say, but there are plenty of companies with absolutely atrocious internal cultures that still manage to innovate and move forward fast, I've had the misfortune of working for a few LOL
I can believe that. What does that have to do with working for a bureaucratic organisation? NASA innovates. It just takes forever compared with non-bureaucratic organisations.
The main problem is that the team has a lot of work to do. So simple tasks might take awhile if they aren't high priority. If I got significant push back, I'd talk to my manager or skip. Because doing it sooner would mean pushing back other high priority requests.