One example of this is the Bill Gates mail about MovieMaker where he points extremely obvious issues and in response none of the VPs says "This is unacceptable. We will take care of it". The response mail is just all of them saying not my scope.
One example of this is the Bill Gates mail about MovieMaker where he points extremely obvious issues and in response none of the VPs says "This is unacceptable. We will take care of it". The response mail is just all of them saying not my scope.
I've wondered where the line is; what's the point at which the company grows too much and regresses to this sort of mess of needing to get bureaucratic consensus? Purely experientially, it seems to be at around the 40-50 people person mark.
I used to think it was an active founder/CEO that couldn't direct things anymore, but that happens at maybe 20-30 people, so that's not it.
I'd even say if you're reaching bureaucratic mess at such low employee count, then it's strictly a company issue of adding too much management and too many silos so early.
I agree it seems low, but for my sample size of ~3 companies it’s held.