Ask HN: Moving from a startup to a big co, what should I be aware of?
To add more context to my question, I’m currently in a product leadership position at a ~300 person SaaS company and I found my way here by way of a semi-decent exit as part of a startup’s founding team. However, I have been considering a switch to a much bigger company (Microsoft, Google, AWS) of late. All I’ve ever learnt over the last decade has been by operating in a capital constrained environment. Moreover, I don’t have a lot of reserve energy in the tank to direct it at another startup after 10 years of blood, sweat and toil.
I often find myself thinking of and seeking out experiences from my peers at these behemoths on how decisions are made and products get built there. On one hand, I’m scared of slowly going further away from all my learnings as an entrepreneur (a lot of which haven’t come easy!!!) but on the other I feel like not having had relevant experience in the right BU/product within a big co is limiting my field of vision. What are some things I should consider before switching?
166 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 223 ms ] threadYou might have a leg up when it comes to keeping your budget low. Upper management is always happy with that.
For me, the biggest difference is that processes in a big co are designed for any single individual to be replaceable. As a consequence, everything is bigger than you and slower to change even if for the best. This is exactly what you're trying to achieve in a successful start-up as it starts with everyone being irreplaceable (to some extent) where you can make a fundamental difference in the future of the company.
Being part of a successful company sounds exciting and you can learn valuable information to apply in other settings but I found that in start-ups you have a lot more room to learn than in a big co. This is because instability in a start-up is very visible and directly accessible (you'll run out of money in X months) so you must timebox everything. However, in a big co instability is more implicit and you can't fail as much. Also unless you can get a fairly high level position at a big co, you won't be able to get "very" relevant experience into building/working the right product because a lot of strategy is not discussed bottom-up in those companies.
* Things work slowly, so relax. There are many people that have a hand in every aspect of a product decision.
* At a startup you are actively changing the world. That’s done now. Put that completely out of your head. You are cog in a machine. Instead focus on your assigned product, help your teammates, and just learn to relax.
* You, the individual, are not important. The product is important, the department that delivers the product is less important, the teams that comprise the department are less important than that, and so on. Again, accept the reality and just relax.
* Do your best. Unlike at a startup, generally you will have time to get things correct. This is the difference between competence and others who struggle to get things right and always appear to be in a hurry. There is no reason to be in a hurry.
* Expect insufficient test automation, lots of regression, and plenty of repetition. Also expect everybody to be an expert that is in a hurry and things in a unique way. Just be patient, politely nod, and just relax.
* If you are good at systems automation then learn to automate away as much of your job as you can. Use the now increased free time to contribute to documentation and internal knowledge repositories. You will find that a lot of the documentation can be automated as well.
* My employer has something like 270,000 employees so it’s forgiven if you have no idea what all of those people in your cubicle farm do. You need to actively spend at least 2 days a month answering those questions.
* Just because you are at a big company does not mean you are safe. I have been in a large established super well known .com that failed. People get laid off even when big companies are healthy.
* If you don’t like being bored and are highly risk adverse you might find the big company life highly depressing. A lot of my advice here is to just relax, but I hate relaxing.
People will keep coming in and going out and you would end up have the same conversation with many people many times. And everyone will try to suggest "one change" at a time.
And there is nothing wrong with all this. This is just how big companies work, you cant fast-forward any of it.
I find that I'm actually working much harder here but my work is more focused and in a single lane. I'm not bouncing around all day between 20 different things. I'm grinding for months on end on one tough, big problem. It's not bad, just...different. The pay is much better here but you are expected to _be_ better.
At {current_job} it feels like I'm slowly developing faux-ADHD from the "priority 1" task changing, often, multiple times a day. Personal projects are a bit of a respite from it, since I get to focus on the one clear, long-term task for good stretches at a time, but recently I've been too burnt out to do even _more_ programming after yet another hectic day.
I feel like I'm a competent SWE, but the nature of the work means everything is a ticking time bomb. If you're rushing all the time, code quality, testing, and all sorts of other sanity-restoring factors become a distant dream. I'd love to take ownership of a few aspect of a large system and slowly improve whatever I can. But the grass is always greener on the other side, so I'm sure this would come with plenty of negatives too. For one thing I feel like I'm too early into my career to be acting as a faux-CTO and being the go-to for all big tech decisions, infrastructure, etc, as well.
Would you say there is an inflection point at which startups stop being like this? 20, 50, 100, 500 engineers? More?
Sorry for the ramble!
What gets to be called a "startup" is highly debatable, as some billion-dollar companies have still been called "startups". However, you will only get to be faux-CTO if you get in really early, or start one yourself. Best of luck!
The extent of this is hard to grasp outside of bigco. At oracle we had layoffs/reorg - no real work was done for ~7 days, and it took 3 months to figure out our new roles/responsibilities. Some people were paid $40k+ in that time period and did very little work.
Things occasionally move very very slow. Twiddle your thumbs and be happy about your huge salary, don't quit like I did!
My 2 cents:
As a contractor, charge a lot. They either have budget and want to spend it RIGHT NOW or they don't. The manager engaging you doesn't really care about your daily rate (relatively speaking).
Above comments on automation is spot on. Test suites might be terrible, so the care required to make changes without breaking things is your responsibility, hence the slow pace. What is in your control is the ability to automate your own testing.
Integration with poorly defined APIs is an important skill. You generally won't have another team maintaining and improving a nice API. You will have access to obscure data stores dumped untransformed in the data warehouse from another megacorp's expensive and poorly documented product, possibly with myriad ETL nuances (read: bugs). Learn to work with this and you can extract gold.
If you have a Windows SOE system, embrace Cygwin/similar.
Curious if you have any tips for this stuff? My instinct would be to just poke and prod things, writing tests or documenting things as I go along. "I wonder what happens when I do X" -> write a test, get a result. "I wonder what data looks like here" -> examine it, write a summary of what I found. Etc.
Hit the nail on the head with that one.
Also I recommend reading “corporate confidential”. I was confused initially why being an excellent engineer who could “deliver” didn’t make me shine at bigco. The book helped me get on a better path.
Also relax.
https://leanpub.com/developerhegemony
https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/adverse-or-ave...
The first means a personality type that doesn’t perform risk analysis normally or does but simply disregards high risk concerns. For example it doesn’t make sense to jump out of an airplane or leap into combat. There is a preference for people who can weigh those risks and override the common sense factor that results in terror. In the business world this could mean investing your life savings into a start up idea knowing you might likely fail with nothing to show for it.
The second more common phrase refers to opposite personality types that cannot proceed in the face of uncertainty. These people are terrified to make a decision where the outcomes are unclear and thus hesitate waiting for increased certainty or for someone else to make that decision.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_aversion_(psychology)
My personal approach to these terms is to simply make a damn decision even with insufficient evidence, because then you are at least doing something. If you later discover your decision is wrong then simply shift direction in the face of new evidence. People who sit there waiting for clarity, feels like an eternity in hell, makes me sad.
That sounds very exciting. Can you point to one startup that's changing the world?
This is in contrast to stable or blue chip like companies who have stable revenues and their product lines are very well established.
The distinction is important for two groups of people .
a) investors - Risks and rewards are fundamentally different , therefore valuation methods are also different t you would use something like a Discounted Cash flow for stable corp you might look at IP, ARR , DAU or any number of other metrics for a startup whose revenues are not stable enough to use DCF etc
b) employees - change or innovation is far more deeply grained culture in startups , What worked yesterday may not work today, that requires different mindset to be successful at
Amazon , Uber are still startups despite what you think about their sizes , ages and current revenues . Building a AWS is only possible if you can completely rethink what is that you sell .
I think that companies that change the world satisfy the following criteria: 1 - their work is very hard to replicate. Not impossible, but it would take a competitor a long time to reproduce their product or service. 2 - people would notice a tangible impact on their life if the company disappeared tomorrow.
All of the big cos right now that have changed the world were a startup not long ago. Yes, not all of the startups will succeed, but there will be yet another trillion dollar company some day which is today somewhere in the realm of early stage startups.
> * You, the individual, are not important. The product is important, the department that delivers the product is less important, the teams that comprise the department are less important than that, and so on. Again, accept the reality and just relax.
Working at startups I have never felt less important as an individual. The product is #1 and I only exist as a cog in the machine to produce that product and make the founders money. In a big company I was encouraged to pursue professional development, my professional goals and dreams were catered for and I felt like I could make personal progression.
> * Expect insufficient test automation, lots of regression, and plenty of repetition. Also expect everybody to be an expert that is in a hurry and things in a unique way. Just be patient, politely nod, and just relax.
Again, opposite experience, startups don't have time for test automation whereas big companies generally do.
> * If you don’t like being bored and are highly risk adverse you might find the big company life highly depressing.
I'm often bored at my startup though never lacking for work. It's just that the work can often be monotonous work because the startup doesn't have time to automate it or hire someone to do it. At a startup, its rare that you're encouraged to explore something new that might not work out. There's just not the time or budget.
I’ve worked at companies with 100k workers down to 10 people companies and the employee is generally a cog everywhere unfortunately but you learn different things. I started out in big companies and learned nothing about the business side of things whatsoever in those years. I did learn solid technical skills and practices though. I think smaller companies are the way to go if you intend to do your own thing one day. Bigger is better earlier in the career to learn technical skills or later on if you need a comfortable/well paying job when raising kids for stability.
I think this is because instead of giving a pay raise, they offer these benefits.
It costs the company nothing.
Coming from the startup to the big company I could not understand why people leave the office at 5pm. There would be another few hours to work.
Also lots of meetings.
As the previous commenter said. Relax.
I guess you will have a broad skill set from your background and actually in big Corp the nice thing is that with this broad skill set That you can engage in so many different projects. And it is tempting to do so. But you only have this much time a day, and it will not be easy to accelerate your pace. This frustration can be bad for your mental health.
So my advice is relax. But also don’t forget the thoughts you had when joining the big company in the first months. Maybe keep a journal. Because you probably had good ideas but might get overwhelmed by the complexity of the big Corp.
If you have not read the “Accelerate” book, I would recommend this as well.
Also you can observe Conway’s Law in its beauty.
_You weren't in the room when the decisions were made and there is oil tanker momentum based on those decisions.
_You don't have a clue as to who is who. People within the organization know each other in non-obvious ways. There is an invisible informal network built of many years, organizational structures, and projects.
_You don't know which project is whose baby. Two equivalent approaches are not equivalent when one has backing and the other relies on natural selection.
None of these is bad. It's just the nature of blindly encountering an elephant. Good luck.
Most big corps have done really smart people, don't be afraid to actively seek to learn from them.
Startup - Enterprise does not mean a paradigm shift in everything. Yes, there are some aspects that would change. And then there will be a lot of scope for applying your self-made learning and leanings.
>...What are some things I should consider before switching?
Take a break if you can afford it. I think that will serve you better than almost any other thing you can do, work related. I've felt this way, and took a few months off, I was champing at the bit to get back to work and start making something happen. You'll think a lot clearer about what you want to do next with some time away.
After you get out of a serious relationship, you need time to heal, regroup, re-find yourself, re-learn who you are, etc before you start dating again. It's similar with jobs you put a lot into.
I hope your experience is better. If you're going to a FAANG I imagine it will be. This place is much more buttoned up.
Plenty of time for self improvement though if you're just using it as a stepping stone.
On the other hand you will also have to pay taxes at a big co. Big co got that way in many cases because they have an integrated solution for customers. Integration is expensive but worth it. It takes a lot of people to be in alignment to make integration work. And that takes time; you need to be patient and look for opportunities to make a difference.
Although the book can be considered bleak, the point is not to train you to suspect your employer, but rather point out various possibilities of politics and power play that may be going on under the surface that are not so obvious from the get go. I.e. it's a survival manual of sorts to a new and sometimes semi-hostile environment.
- there are feuds between companies or even departments in the same org
- decisions are not based on facts but on political circumstances
- the outcome of an analysis is often predetermined
- not the best idea/project/etc. win's but the one with the best connections
- decisions are made that are damaging to the company just to deny someone else in the org a success
and
"Everyone got heard."
On the other hand, you will get a ton of exposure learning from others and knowing more people. That’s always there for sure at large organizations. Above all, a sense of being a part of a cult.
https://zwischenzugs.com/2018/10/02/why-are-enterprises-so-s...
I think you will be mostly astounded at the lack of things you can learn from the way decisions are made inside big companies. Which is to say, they aren’t super rational organizations.
As a multiple FAANG alumni, I can tell you that decisions made are often strongly influenced by politics, individual executive “hunches,” and legacy tech concerns instead of raw cost/benefit or actual data.
The fact is, you’re going to make a lot more money doing much less work at FAANG.
However, very little of what you learn about how the organization runs will be valuable outside of the big organization itself.
* Things work a lot more slowly in big co's.
* There's a lot more ego involved so prepare for a lot of ass lickers(I really can't think of a better term).
* A lot of "meetings", "discussions", "planning" and so on, which often are just means to kick a can down the road.
* More time to relax.
* Nearly impossible to change the status quo, not impossible but a very slow and painful process.
* Often more freedom to experiment with technologies and proprietary solutions if you find a way to justify them(which is often not a difficult task).
* Plenty of ways to squeeze out training, seminars, certifications and whatnot, just make sure you read the tiny font at the bottom.
Even in big companies you will be constrained by budgets, and possibly even more than you're used to. The big companies have money to try many different things, but normally products start small, and can be killed if they're not going to be profitable enough. Especially if you're ina leadership position, you're going to have to convince people to fund your products.
The other big thing to consider is politics. Don't get me wrong, politics are everywhere, even in startups, but there's a difference. You're going to have arguments with people that you can't go have a beer with after work, and you have to consider how that will affect your relationship after the argument.
You better brush up on your social engineering, learn when to smile and when not to, and watch your back. Rationality and intelligence will not get you far on their own, because the game isn't about who's the smartest or who has the best ideas, it's about leverage, prejudices, cliques, "prestige", and ultimately money.
Remember you're there to play with some toys, occasionally commit code, and get that sweet money.
The biggest transition for me was the amount of cross org digging and asking and such required. So much is constantly in Flux, and internal integration points are often poorly documented or have apis based off protocols from a decade ago, or whatever else. You spend most of your time doing that, figuring out how to integrate with various old, half supported systems, getting pushback that the integration won't be supportable, etc.
This is in strong contrast with a small company where you are generally working with public, well documented tools, and everyone you work with shares the same goal.
That said, I'm happy now that I have gotten used to it. The scale of things you work on is much greater.
One thing I'll say is don't sell yourself short by taking a job at the low end of where you think you should be and telling yourself that you can work your way up. I made this mistake when I was unemployed but not desperate. Your project could be canceled or there can be blockers or reorgs or whatever else that keeps you back. So wait for the offer that you want.