Why do big companies suck?

(Note: In a new series of posts, now called reader’s choice, I’ll write about whatever people submit and vote for.

Leave a Comment / What do you think?

Your email is never published nor shared (comments policy).

60 Responses

  • Drew @ Cook Like Your Grandmother - January 6, 2010 at 7:34 pm #

  • Nit about the USSC ruling: Most of the Wikipedia article focuses on the fact that the court in fact intentionally avoided the question of corporate personhood. This “obiter dictum” statement has been relied on ever since as the basis of legal treatment of corporations. Without it, the corporate psychopath couldn’t exist.


  • SG - January 6, 2010 at 7:38 pm #

  • I think that labor specialization leads to its own brand of suckiness.

    For example, at startups, the IT infrastructure tends to be managed by the same people building the product, and request fulfillment is generally an order of magnitude faster than in the large IT departments in which I’ve worked.

    Given that the quality of the deployed infrastructure was actually higher in the startups, I have to think that some aspect of separating people into specialized groups leads to suckiness. Maybe it’s because there are more places to “hide” poor talent in a large, multi-group organization, or maybe it’s just a matter of motivation, I don’t know.


  • Mike Nitabach - January 6, 2010 at 7:38 pm #

  • Big companies should have dedicated process simplifers, senior people who just run around, point our areas that can be leaner or simpler, or where line level employees should be more autonomous, to keep this tendency in check.

    This is a great idea! Universities could definitely benefit from this, too!!


  • Glen B Alleman - January 6, 2010 at 7:58 pm #

  • This of course is HIGHLY domain dependent. From my office window I can see several of our clients:

    CH2M Hill
    Lockheed Martin Space Systems Company
    Northrup Grumman
    Ball Aerospace and Technology

    None of these multi billion firms have any of the attributes you list.

    When the firm produces an exciting, state of the art product. One that chances the course of the world. One that causes grown men to cry when it fails and cry even more when it succeeds – locate the video from the JPL control room when the Mars lander reported back that it had arrived and was working as defined.

    You need to drop the cynic view and come visit those of us who do “cry” at the launch of our “baby” on its way to orbit or Mars.

    Glen B. Alleman
    VP, Program Planning and Controls
    Aerospace and Defense
    Denver Colorado


  • Alan Lunk - January 6, 2010 at 8:46 pm #

  • I do agree with the list here. It is ironic to see that companies become big because they were once creative but that within their success lies a poison that kills the visionary spirit.


  • Branimir ?orluka - January 7, 2010 at 12:41 am #

  • Hi Scott,

    Great article!

    Regarding Addicted to bureaucracy, actually a lot of big companies are using methodologies to improve their processes.

    What you call “process simplifers” is actually called process owner in the BPM methodology.They are trying to achieve a process oriented organization in contrary to current functional organizations.

    Greetings


  • Helmut Kazmaier - January 7, 2010 at 12:52 am #

  • Thx for the great post.
    With all the layers of management the decision makers get more and more detached from real customers. They lose focus on what it means to be a customer of their company. An inside-out perspective predominates and leads to many of the symptoms you describe in your post.
    What’s your opinion on getting big companies to shift to a outside-in perspective and put themselves in their customers shoes in order to focus on what’s really important?
    Would like to hear more on that.


  • Dwayne Phillips - January 7, 2010 at 6:00 am #

  • Don’t forget that government agencies – all of them really big – suffer the same maladies. Plus, they have people who act like morons as senior executives. Proof, if they were really bright they would be making 10x the money as executives in private industry.


  • KoW - January 7, 2010 at 6:55 am #

  • Working myself in a big company (hey, it has got its benefits! ;)) I do see one pattern again and again: the higher people are in the hierarchy, the shorter their TTL is, therefore they better make the most out it in short time. Nobody has got a real interest in the situation of the company in five years from now (either you have been promoted or kicked), so everything is streamlined to look good for the next bonus round …


  • JustTheGraphicsGuy - January 7, 2010 at 7:43 am #

  • Based on my experience in big pharma it seems to me that personal responsibility for decision-making is avoided like the plague. Low level people are not empowered to make decisions while middle and high level people are too busy trying to fly under the radar, afraid to make a mistake that will cost them later in terms of future promotions, bonus etc. As a result, they spend much time getting “buy-in” from as many other people as they can find who, like them, are afraid to take a position that could expose them to the potential for being held responsible for the ultimate decision should it not succeed as well as expected. Result: projects either go into limbo or die on the vine.


  • Michael Bolton - January 7, 2010 at 8:03 am #

  • I have lived through the experience of a small company changing into a (bad) bigger one. That experience included each one of the items on Scott’s list.

    I know people at one of the companies named in the comment above by Glen Alleman, and those people would disagree with his claim that “None of these multi billion firms have any of the attributes you list.” Note that Scott referred explicitly to bad big companies. Note also that VPs tend to have a perspective that’s different from the line workers. It’s rare to hear an executive saying “Man, the paperwork we have to deal with around here is all total B.S.”, because either they’re not subject to the paperwork, or there’s an admin to handle it for them. It’s equally rare, in my experience, to hear a VP or a
    CxO say, “We should cut down on the bureaucracy” or “We should hire an admin for that group so the people in it can work more efficiently (as I do).”

    —Michael B.


  • Christa Avampato - January 7, 2010 at 9:18 am #

  • Hi Scott,
    I think this list applies to big and small companies alike. Any company that has lost the principle that their people truly are their very best asset will suffer, particularly in this economy. Good talent, if not appreciated, walks eventually.


  • Joel D Canfield - January 7, 2010 at 10:02 am #

  • I’m sure it’s embedded in the others you’ve listed, but another flaw more common in large companies than small is the disconnect between authority and responsibility.

    In a big company, it’s easier to tell the IT staff “If you just work faster, you can get more done in less time.”

    When ‘IT’ is one person and they eat lunch at your desk with you, that ain’t gonna fly.

    My friend Tom Berarducci (27-year veteran of an enormous corporation whose name begins and ends with ‘K’) is writing a book called ‘What Not To Do’ with lessons about everything on the list here. I’ve read the first draft, and it’s smart and funny and useful.

    Oh, a nit of my own: “many companies entire revue” sb “many companies’ entire revue” (Plural possessive. Sorry; I’m editing three books right now and it’s hard to turn off.)


  • Jim - January 7, 2010 at 10:12 am #

  • I think the worst moment in any (bigger) company is that when people just resign. I feel that everytime I hear at a meeting in my company “that’s not my business”, “I don’t care”, “Can’t change it” etc. that a small part of me dies inside.

    Because “that’s not my business” when in fact it’s most important for the employees in the team… than what should be the motivation to ever change something for the better?


  • Scott Berkun - January 7, 2010 at 11:27 am #

  • Joel: good catch – fixed!


  • Scott Berkun - January 7, 2010 at 11:29 am #

  • For the record none of these things are universal conditions. If you have a good manager, or a great VP, they can create a very different environment underneath them that is superior in culture/quality/morale/productivity/etc. inside the big company.

    That is one advantage, of several, of a big company – there can be a wide range of management styles and cultures inside one company.


  • lauren cramer - January 7, 2010 at 11:46 am #

  • I would add that in large companies there is the silo affect. Many large companies are public companies and can’t share information with their employees or it’s considered insider trading. This creates an atmosphere of only knowing what’s going on your department and what is relevant for you to get your job done. When you see the big picture and what other teams are working on, it gives you a feeling of being more deeply involved. You feel like you have a little piece in every part of the pie versus just your small slice. At least that is what I’ve experience being in small company that grew to a larger one.


  • chromatic - January 7, 2010 at 12:41 pm #

  • Success justifies the means. A company that’s survived 25 years or has hundreds of employees or is the leader in its field believes itself to have done something right — even if no one can agree on what that something is or reproduce it.

    (Absent) founder envy. A company with a strong, charismatic founder who started most of the business units and is still around in some leadership role will suffer trying to find or develop replacements for the founder; they need several smart and creative people, but none of them will get the resources they need to succeed out of a corporate sense of loyalty.


  • Shuje - January 7, 2010 at 12:43 pm #

  • Excellent piece.

    I worked at a company from day zero (5 employees) for 7 years (1200 employees when I left.) I resigned partly because I could not adapt to the very things you mention in this article. It was so frustrating.

    The successful suckups, the self lying, the useless processes. I might add there is a powerful disconnection between people when numbers get bigger. The sense of family run business slowly fades and gets replaced by an “every man for himself” attitude.

    Your suggestion for a Process Uncluttering Process :) seems like a good initiative though. I would applaude companies that on their way to getting bigger try to stay small were it matters the most.

    Cheers.


  • Joe Enos - January 7, 2010 at 2:14 pm #

  • All very valid points. I’ve done the small companies and two gigantic companies, and it’s so much nicer day-to-day working at the small ones. It’s easier to get things done, easier to get noticed by your superiors, and just generally more pleasant.

    I’ve done the whole small-to-large company transition, and it’s not a lot of fun. Little-by-little, productivity gives way to committees, personal responsibilities turn into group decisions that never get made, and bonuses and benefits turn into mathematical formulas on how the owners can line their pockets the most.

    The big advantage for large companies would seem to be stability, but that really doesn’t hold true for me – I worked for two of the oldest and largest companies in the country (Montgomery Ward and Bear Stearns), and both are now gone. Just bad luck for me, I guess…


  • Pawel Brodzinski - January 7, 2010 at 3:30 pm #

  • The thing which I hate about big organizations is lack of trust. You just can’t tell what you think or share your opinions because odds are it will turn against yourself. You can’t really expect you get honest opinions from your colleagues. It’s all, to some point, about office politics.

    I can play by these rules but at the same time I hate it.


  • Joel D Canfield - January 7, 2010 at 7:16 pm #

  • Pawel, while I’d put ‘lack of trust’ under Scott’s first point (soulless) I like that you brought it up. It’s easy to build trust with a small group. It’s nearly impossible with a large group.


  • Pawel Brodzinski - January 8, 2010 at 2:09 am #

  • Joel, I’ve taken ‘soulless company’ more like a place when you come just to get a paycheck but you don’t care anymore. But I agree that there are very similar (or the same) reasons which take soul away from the company and kill trust between people.

    There’s one thing I’ve realized reading the article and comments. Being ‘big’ starts with very different sizes when you just count people. In its soul a company of 200 can be small or big. I’ve even seen a company of 50 which suited the picture drawn by Scott.


  • JoyfulC - January 8, 2010 at 7:25 am #

  • I’m not sure what you’d call it, but they seem to spend enormous sums marketing for new customers, while failing to do what it takes to keep old customers. Every time you phone technical support or customer service, you hear “All our operators are currently busy. Your call is important to us. Please stay on the line for the next available operator.” And lately, it’s not uncommon that you hear that AFTER you’ve already been through some sort of menu. Once you do reach a real live person, that person, more often than not, isn’t empowered to help you if you truly have a problem. Mostly, they’re only empowered to help people who aren’t bright enough to follow installation instructions, or whatever.

    I appreciate that companies do this to reduce overhead and increase profits, but what they may not realize is that I REALIZE that the manpower they’re saving themselves is made up for by ME. I have to do the work, I have to put in the time, and I’m the customer.

    This has led my household and my business to pare down to the bare minimum in our dealings with any companies that do business this way. We no longer have cable or satellite TV service. Our phone service is the basic package. We use free or open source software whenever possible.

    It’s not like we’re just cheap — we paid through the nose for services and products for decades. And if we’d been treated decently, we’d still be paying. Now when we receive some flashy marketing piece from the phone or cable company in the mail, we just laugh and wonder how much it cost them to send it to us. They might as well save that money too because our business is gone. For good.


  • Vicki - January 8, 2010 at 11:43 am #

  • To Glen B Alleman – Hold on there!
    You don’t work at these clients, yet you “know” they don’t have _any_ of the problems Scott lists? Are you pyschic? Have you interviewed all of the employees?

    Even for your own company, I hate to tell you this, but you’re a VP. The higher a manager gets in the org, the more likely s/he is to think that all is well. Employees see suckage of the company; execs see a few malcontents and complainers.


  • Pierce Hickey - January 9, 2010 at 5:33 am #

  • Conway’s Law – the larger companies get, the more it impacts their ability to get anything done.

    I believe one of the main reasons that Agile approaches work is due to explicit emphasis on reducing cross-organisational friction, by making as many participants as possible work closely together, ignoring the classical organisational hierarchy.


  • John J Gorse - January 9, 2010 at 5:28 pm #

  • Thankyou Scott,

    6:08 AM (11 hours ago)GIVEN IN from Who’s Country Is It Anyway? by ConcernedCitizen

    We think on the same simplicity versus complex bureaucracy.

    John


  • Randy - January 9, 2010 at 7:03 pm #

  • Now just think of the U.S Government as the the biggest company in the world …


  • Rajesh Kumar - January 9, 2010 at 8:17 pm #

  • Scott,

    This is an outstanding read. High on EQ and common sense. The Soul Has Left The Building… will be my all time favorite.

    I once wrote my views on “Great Workplaces”, you might find something in there to add to your article.

    Rajesh


  • Wilt Alston - January 10, 2010 at 10:59 am #

  • Very thought-provoking list. I wonder how many of these items of suckage would go away without a huge, bureaucratic state to enforce and/or create them. (A government agency is the best example for many of these maladies.)


  • anata - January 10, 2010 at 2:20 pm #

  • peter principle corolary:

    Time is spent covering your ass instead of working. Meaning when you are really a big corporate runner-up, you manage for the person next to (or better under) you to do your work, and be responsible for your mistakes.


  • Joe Topinka - January 11, 2010 at 7:26 am #

  • I have worked for public and private companies and in both instances management gets hooked on monthly and quarterly performance results. Focusing on financial performance leads to short-term focus and it drains creative energy. New ideas aren’t welcome unless that have a very short ROI. I agree that as companies grow new managers tend to take credit for the ingenuity and creativity of past managers and creative thinkers.


  • Mark - January 14, 2010 at 4:05 pm #

  • You really hit the nail on the head here, Scott. I wonder this all the time, particularly as I see firsthand the, on average, much better service provided by staff at smaller companies (the nonprofit I work for runs an annual top small company workplaces competition to find those that are engaging employees most effectively for stronger sales and better community relations).

    I think the big reason why some (not all — just look at the Container Store) big businesses suck is that they inherently have huge hierarchies and bureaucracies which can intimidate and lesson the perceived power of low- to mid-level employees. In short, many people in these companies don’t think they have a voice; and often, they’re right because they really haven’t been given a voice, and a chance to see how their work impacts the business.


  • Willy - January 19, 2010 at 5:56 am #

  • When companies grow sufficiently large, the HR department moves from being an agent for the employers to a group whose sole focus is risk reduction.

    Employee needs to be fired? Shroud it in as much secrecy as possible and forget about employee morale.

    Employees need training? Get it done as cheaply as possible since the goal is the record the employee is trained and not how effective the training.

    The list goes on, but the best friends of an HR department in a large corporation are secrecy and budget cuts.


  • Robert Young - January 19, 2010 at 8:18 am #

  • @ Dwayne:
    Proof, if they were really bright they would be making 10x the money as executives in private industry.

    No proof there. Much of what is done in government is not exactly the same. Much of the time it is crook-catching of one sort or another. Those that want to be crooks work for corporations. Those that want to catch crooks where white hats and work for government. Unless you assert that all government functions should be outsourced to corporations. That would be the world of “Robo Cop”; not one in which I would like to live.

    Note also that most corruption in government is in service (so to speak) of corporations attempting to defraud the citizenry, either directly or through the government.

    Socialism can work, if the society wishes it. The Scandinavians have managed it for centuries. And they live longer for less.


  • Ofek - January 25, 2010 at 1:11 pm #

  • My personal #1 reason is divided responsibility. It directly leads to politicization of the work environment, and to channeling energy to placing blames and self-promotion. Personally, I see it as the root cause for most aforementioned symptoms, and (sadly) I consider it unavoidable – the larger an operation is, the smaller fraction of it can be under individual responsibility. It is just inherent in growth.


  • Bernard Dy - January 27, 2010 at 10:44 am #

  • Scott, I love this post. Too bad the execs that need to read it won’t, and even those that do will likely ‘pooh pooh’ the points.

    I have something to add that wasn’t specifically mentioned: Big Companies Change Constituents. Many of your points are related (especially “The soul has left the building”), and of course this doesn’t happen to all big companies, but I think that when a company is small, it is focused and passionate about serving a key client need. As it grows and becomes public, the customer changes; it’s no longer the end user, but the stockholder. Stockholders don’t care about the quality of the end product, don’t care about the end user, and certainly don’t care about how the company’s employees are treated. It becomes all about quarterly results.

    Again, this wouldn’t apply to all companies but as I’ve struggled with my frustrations with large companies, this thought came to mind. It is a special company that can deal with the pressures of public ownership and still maintain some of the intangibles that tend to fade with age and bulk.


  • Pat - January 28, 2010 at 4:45 am #

  • I think this is a great piece and I wish that the big chiefs at the big bad companies would take heed.

    I am just about to go through my 2nd Company buy-out in 3 years. I changed companies after a year and a half after the last one. I was at a small company with issues, but where every one knew each other, what they were supposed to do and what they did/did not do, who to go to and yes… who to blame etc. Talent was appreciated (if not financially rewarded), decisions could be made, progression was tangible and things could happen quickly. Those were the good old days. I think what we have to accept that organizations like that, to be successful, will either have to change to compete with the big guns or they will be acquired. Unfortunately, we need to learn to deal with them and get the best of the positive things that they have to offer. Financial security is not something to be scoffed at…even if you do risk losing your soul and creativity.


  • Loopgru - February 10, 2010 at 1:02 am #

  • Just one point of note- there is actually no original ruling explicitly granting corporations legal personhood and status in the US. The ruling in question included an obiter dictum (essentially a non-binding editorial) from one member of the court opining that said status was understood, but as it was not a part of the ruling itself it sets no precedent.


  • Real - February 26, 2010 at 2:23 pm #

  • Great article and soooo true. It all resonates with my experience and I’ll add this for my two cents worth. Big companies are obsessed with their unchallengable authority. They are not wrong, ever. In their eyes it is always someone else, and they can pin the tail on the donkey of whomever fits the crime and move on with apparent impunity. The guy who suffers is down the ranks, always.


  • Peter - April 11, 2010 at 6:07 am #

  • Good article and I recognize a lot of this.
    The only thing is that the Job security argument doesn’t really hold anymore if the company is focussed only on saving costs (implemented by reducing hourly rate).

    I am working now at a big company and expecting our site to close down within a couple of years. If it does, the main reason will be that we self-destructed because the soul is gone, and because we spend more time administering and planning the work than actually doing it. Also, there is a culture that prevents innovation from within so we depend entirely on feedback from external customers, and that means that one feedback loops takes a couple of years.


Links to this article

  • eungju's me2DAY - January 6, 2010 at 6:08 pm

  • EP? ??…

    Why do big companies suck? by Scott Berkun…


  • Al surfend over het web 10 januari | Contentgirls - January 10, 2010 at 9:05 am

  • [...] Werken voor een groot bedrijf, met het risico dat je een nummer bent en blijft. Of werken bij een klein bedrijf maar dan met minder mogelijkheden. Het heeft allebei voor- en nadelen. De schrijver van dit artikel heeft wat redenen op een rij gezet waarom grote bedrijven niet cool zijn. [...]


  • 100112 In The Know v1.02: Five Useful Links | HR Examiner with John Sumser - January 13, 2010 at 5:56 am

  • [...] Why Do Big Companies Suck? Scott Berkun may well be the next Peter Drucker. His books on innovation, project management and his web writings are the motivating force for a significant wedge of next-gen leaders. The bad press given to Big Cos is not one dimensional and unintelligent. With thought leaders like Berkun fueling the crowd, the bigs are painted as virtual penal colonies where creativity is shunned. It’s bad for your employment brand. [...]


  • Aaron Johnson – Links: 1-17-2010 - January 18, 2010 at 2:25 am

  • [...] Why do big companies suck? « Scott Berkun Good reminders if you work at a small company that you want to help keep feeling small. (categories: business management politics culture social leadership ) [...]


Scott's Bestselling Books
  • Confessions of a
    Public Speaker
  • Provocative and funny secrets from a veteran speaker, you'll laugh as you learn.
  • Buy now at Amazon Book Details
  • The Myths of Innovation
  • The classic bestseller, now in paperback with 4 new chapters.
  • Buy now at Amazon Book Details
  • Making Things Happen
  • The classic and bestselling handbook for any project leader, packed with tactics and stories.
  • Buy now at Amazon Book Details
Photos from Recent Events (view flickr stream)

You're reading Scott Berkun, All rights reserved unless noted. You can subscribe here Blog RSS Comments (RSS)