[carterschonwald]

The vast vast majority of interesting technical work is done in large organizations, or at least organizations that have enough people that you're not "picking your clients". Small companies that have genuinely interesting work are sadly the exception rather than the rule. Many of those small organizations support themselves with DARPA R&D contracts or the like.

If you really care about interesting work and colleagues, there never a cut and dried answer about small vs large organizations. Ever.

[clooth]

I do agree with you on the fact that the most interesting technical work is indeed done in large organizations, but it has (at least in my own experience) always been the case that the companies strive to get lots of clients instead of trying to choose the ones where they think they could do something awesome with. You know?

I suppose I came out a bit aggressive on the fact that it's about small vs. large organizations only, but this was just my own personal opinion based on (only) a few years of experience in the field.

I'm not ruling out large organizations, and large organizations can also be all up for the new and interesting stuff, but that's not the case in the bureaucracy companies (which I'm ruling out) where everyone is stuck to the standard in-house CMS, programming language, or framework.

There's always exceptions to every rule. I agree with that.

[bluedino]

> The vast vast majority of interesting technical work is done in large organizations

So is the vast majority of boring technical work.

[kamaal]

Small companies have a lot of work. A lot of work doesn't actually mean good work.

Unless you are simply looking to undergo a form of endurance training.

[mimiflynn]

I agree, it seems that smaller companies as for more work for less. Usually, in my experience, they need something to outfast, but don't care if its made correctly since they just need to look good to sell the business.