[kozikow]

In small company, while you don't have internal mobility across teams it's much easier to work on different projects, since cost of switching between projects is not so expensive as in big company. There are no formal management rules, so you don't have to play politics to achieve this.

Even in companies with "open allocation" you are not given completely free choice where to work, because you first need to gain credibility. It's faster to achieve level of credibility, required full freedom on what to work inn smaller company with open allocation than in big corporation, even ones, which are pretending to have open allocation.

[michaelochurch]

In small company, while you don't have internal mobility across teams it's much easier to work on different projects, since cost of switching between projects is not so expensive as in big company. There are no formal management rules, so you don't have to play politics to achieve this.

It depends. Small companies can go to shit quickly. I've seen it happen at under 10 people.

Even in companies with "open allocation" you are not given completely free choice where to work, because you first need to gain credibility. It's faster to achieve level of credibility, required full freedom on what to work inn smaller company with open allocation than in big corporation, even ones, which are pretending to have open allocation.

That goes against open allocation, because the whole idea is that you have the right to work for the company directly without needing a "credible" person to sanction it. Open allocation probably requires that projects have some degree of sanction, but that should be based on project merits as much as possible. And if people aren't free to move form one sanctioned project to another, then it's not open allocation.