Is it inevitable that the larger a company gets, the less innovative it becomes? Large companies mean more employees, and more employees ultimately mean someone, somewhere in the chain of decision making will take the safe path in order to stay…well, safe:
In their (admirable) desire to be strong and stable, the “branches” put safety above all else. What kind of safety? Sometimes managers are putting the best interests of the company first. That’s great–they’re often more experienced and have a better grasp of the bigger context. But (and it’s a really big but) sometimes they’re just worried about their own damn job. In other words, the leaf node/individual contributors often think about the effect of their work on users, while the mid-level managers often think about the effect of their work on their job. And whose fault is that? All those layers of bosses. Even one risk-averse boss in the chain-of-command can do major damage to innovation, spirt, motivation, etc.
I think that’s exactly right. It only takes one individual in the right position who would rather take the safe route to take a product or service from phenomenal to mediocre. And I don’t think this is only present at larger companies, it’s just that it’s more likely to be at larger companies simply because of the larger number of employees. Of course, the all to apparent irony here is that it’s exactly the willingness to not be safe that leads to success.
So does this mean that a powerhouse like Google will eventually feel similar effects as Microsoft? Time will tell, I suppose, although Google certainly seems to be aware of the risks associated with becoming too careful.
