[anovikov]

But this is how it should be. Very best of the best start their own startups. Second best, start their own consultancies. Next on, work independently. Next on, are principals in small firms - they are the irreplaceable singular employees that the owner of a small firm wholly depends on. And then the mediocre and the bad ones, that work in largest firms. This is how it's always been.

[oceanplexian]

It's not that way in practice, and I've worked at a lot of startups. IMO successful founders are street smart, cunning, and good at relationships and understanding the business. Most of the really wealthy founders I've met are incredibly ordinary or above average, not "best".

[nrhrjrjrjtntbt]

Not sure what we are even measuring anymore in this discussion!

[sameklund]

It seems that your claim is that “this is how it should be” and also “this is how it is/has been” - not sure if you are referring to a specific region, considering the parent comment, but assuming you mean the tech industry in general, this seems patently false.

This is not a description of how talented, or smart, or “good at something” someone is. You are describing how risk-averse someone is, as well as how able to survive failure. The latter is slightly different from the former, although related. Someone not able to survive failure at all (due to having no savings, for example, or perhaps someone who has high monthly fixed costs) ought to have a low tolerance for risk, but they might still have a lower threshold for what they consider risky relative to someone else.

I’ve met plenty of talented/smart/etc people in each of these groups, and also plenty of the opposite. To be fair, my experience is anecdotal and biased, although I would reasonably expect such a pattern to continue.

[tormeh]

No. If you want to build big products, you need big organizations (i.e. companies). Big products have moats, often network effects or natural monopolies or whatever, but if nothing else then just the sheer investment required to build a competitor. Products with moats can extract wealth. So big companies are often extremely profitable. That's where the money is. Consulting is something talented people do in countries with no big tech companies.

[anovikov]

Yes you are right, but it doesn't contradict my statement. Of course big companies are necessary and big companies are where the moats and thus wealth creation is. But it doesn't mean they need to hire the best people (market control/moats make them competitive even if almost all employees are disposable drones), or that they can do it (because of agency problem). Small companies both need the best people (they don't have those moats and also don't have division of labor deep enough to make do with more stupid people doing better granulated/formalised work, everyone has to wear many hats and be flexible), and can do it because agency problem there is less pronounced due to fewer layers of management. Yes as a result, they make less profit (can take less of market for having no/smaller moat, and have to pay more to people because they have to hire better ones), but this is the company's problem, not employees'.