[lukaszkorecki]

> The arguments articulated are entirely false

I’d would disagree - I had the exact experience that the autor described. But you are right on this point

> it’s entirely possible to build that intoxicating environment anywhere. It’s more about having a dynamic leader who assembles teams into collections of individuals who know precisely why they are there

I still think it’s related to size and bad incentives. I heard stories of people at FAANG that said that department X is like a startup but Y is soul sucking boredom

[fnordpiglet]

Yes, thats correct. However the existence of X department at all refutes the authors premise and conclusion - and if X exists, it’s entirely possibly for Y to become better.

Specifically this is entirely false due to the existence of X:

> Is this preventable? I think not.

I> f you look closely, all these problems fundamentally come from:

> Decreased skin in the game, which reduces team alignment

> N^2 communication, which creates need for managers and specialization, which reduces individual agency and breadth of learning

> Reduced risk tolerance, which slows everything down

> #1 and #2 are inevitable results of having more employees. #3 is an inevitable result of having more users, partially due to government regulation.

I think a large company enables Y departments to exist without the company imploding immediately. Survivorship bias ensures most startups that last longer than a short amount of time to appear like X, when I know there are plenty of dysfunctional startups (a friend tells me Ghost is a great example). But due to the economics of a startup they evaporate quickly. In a large company Y departments can limp along for a long time or indefinitely because Y’s function needs to exist and the company can afford for it to suck ass to work there without it going out of business. However invariably X departments in large corporations are where the magic happens, where people want to work, and what moves the large enterprise forward.

I’d also note that not everyone wants to work in a startup environment or are able to. Many engineers got into it for a good paycheck and don’t have much interest in anything particularly dynamic or engaging. They’re perfectly happy committing once a month and sitting in meetings. That’s not me, but I can also see when you build an army, you can’t build it out of special forces only.

So, instead of saying X can’t exist, when it clearly does, I think it’s more useful to say you should be careful where you work in a large company and seek out actively the X departments by learning what Y departments look like and how to spot an X department.

[dasil003]

> I’d also note that not everyone wants to work in a startup environment or are able to. Many engineers got into it for a good paycheck and don’t have much interest in anything particularly dynamic or engaging.

This is an excellent point. In my experience a majority of people value stability and predictability in their lives. They would rather have someone tell them what to do within well-structured bounds than contend with the ambiguity inherent in an early stage startup, or with solving massive product/business/technical problems with too many stakeholders to fit in a room.

I think the challenge is the people with the intrinsic motivation and stomach for the ambiguity can struggle to grow in large corporate environments that are full of good soldiers who stay in their lane. It's not uncommon for entry level ICs to come in with 3 or 4 layers of management between them and VP level, and then become pawns in middle management games, or stuck reporting to Peter-principle cases who teach them all the wrong lessons.

This is why I was really glad to have worked in startups when I was young, to really get exposed to all the moving parts and fundamentals of an operating business. It's just much easier to learn when the big picture is more legible, you have the latitude to iterate faster, make more mistakes, and see first-hand how things scale (or don't!) from the ground up. These days I see too many ivy league grad ex-FAANG who have all kinds of ideas of best practices with no understanding of why things are done that way at the tech giants, and extremely limited ability to reason from first principles about what makes sense in a different context.

[dventimi]

Would you describe your work at large companies as "intoxicating"?

[fnordpiglet]

Absolutely. The most exciting work I’ve done that has literally changed our world was done at systemically important multinational megacorps, where we created environments of unfettered innovation and an assembled teams of amazing individuals working as a coherent team. I had some really great leaders early in my career that showed it’s not only possible it’s the only way to enjoy any role at any company no matter the size. While you can’t clone their method to work in any environment, you can adapt their method to any environment with enough energy applied. The essential secrets are the ones I outlined. As an IC though it’s all about finding those leaders among the functionaries.

Likewise, most of the startups I worked at were exciting by not intoxicating. They were relatively banal in their goals (change the world through prestige makeup e-commerce or something), their technology modern but not innovative, and the teams tight but not always coherent like a well oiled machine.

[convolvatron]

big companies have resources that give you reach (channels, marketing, human talent, legal, international presence, longer term investments) that you can never get with a smaller company.

being able to apply them effectively can really be really frustrating though. and there is always the danger that your two year development arc will be demolished by 'shifts in overall strategy' or 'belt tightening' or a reorg.

[fnordpiglet]

Yeh. But startups can and do fail, pivot, get restructured by their VC.

[dventimi]

> I had some really great leaders early in my career that showed it’s not only possible it’s the only way to enjoy any role at any company no matter the size.

I'm not persuaded anyone is in a position to know that there's only one way for people to enjoy work, and to know what that one way is.

[fnordpiglet]

That’s the secret. Most management is about the one way people work. The right way is to realize everyone is an individual and everyone has a different way of working, and what they enjoy about work. This forms a complex optimization problem for the manager, whose job, IMO, is to figure out the puzzle of how to maximize everyone’s individual value in the team. The way you do that is match their style of work and strengths with the teams needs and find other team mates to backfill their weaknesses. Then giving people the space to do things the way they prefer it while keeping a strong common collaboration medium within the team.

Return to office is a current example. My strategy here is that people know how they work best and that’s up to them. We have ways of getting together and collaborating, asynchronously and synchronously, and don’t enforce a mandatory hybrid approach. I encourage the team to intentionally meet up in person regularly, and the team self organizes synchronous in person time on a regular basis. I set up a drop in zoom room that’s always signed in on a conference room and people drop in for adhoc stuff all the time. Some people stay signed in all day on the conference room. I make sure ticketing systems, chats, and other mediums are well used. I regularly talk to people about their well being to be sure folks remote are OK, as sometimes fully remote can mean fully depressed.

Compare this to a “standard” managers approach. “We will be in the office three days a week, with a mandatory day on Wednesday. This is necessary because people work best in person but we want to give people flexibility because we know employees value that. Failure to comply will result in performance review impact. Our company’s culture is built on in person interactions. We do this for the children.”

Typical management is about treating people as butts in seat filling a role with a define set of measurable performance metrics - aka conforming cogs in a machine. that is the method that assumes there is one way for people to enjoy work, and knowing what that one way is.

My way is acknowledging I don’t know any one way that’s best, and specifically, there is no one way for people to enjoy work. It’s my job as a manger to figure out what each and every person on my teams way is, and to do my damnedest to create that environment for each individual. I work hard to hire managers that will also do this, and I meet randomly with people at all levels of my org to be sure they’re being treated like this by the people on my direct team.

The down side for me is I stick out like a sore thumb in the great cog machine of other managers. They don’t understand what I’m doing, it bothers them, and they feel like I’m getting some sort of preferential treatment. And maybe I am, because my organizations are almost always considerably more effective and successful than the rest of the org, so we get enormous latitude. But shielding my people from the game of thrones is exhausting - more exhausting than the rest of my job.

All this said, I’m not the only one who does this. I have encountered a lot of leaders that do this. They’re the ones people want to work for. That’s why I paid attention to what my early leaders were doing and emulated it - the one way is there is no one way ;-)

[NalNezumi]

That was a pleasant read, thank you for the comment. I've felt something similar about management, but not quite clear enough to put in to words.

Maybe I'm late in my comment but, I have two questions if you do not mind.

If you have a manager that is not quite like that, but probably somewhere in their mind would agree to that stance, how could one push that person to that direction? I have my manager (and a friend) in mind, gives good autonomy and let everyone work in the way they feel is optimal. But it also most often lead to aimless or fuzzy goal setting, a lot of ambiguity. My guess is that the thing lacking is the inquisitive nature; like you mentioned you do, he does not check in on people how they feel, what's blocking them, what's suboptimal for them. He simply check in for an update on progress and set meeting to update what he's up to.

Is there any good material or pointer that could make someone manage more like that?

I also informally manage one person due language barrier and the question also applies to me.

[dventimi]

> All this said, I’m not the only one who does this. I have encountered a lot of [managers] that do this. They’re the ones people want to work for

How about people who don't want to work for a "manager"? Where should we go?