> When I'm talking about how large companies have inefficient processes, it doesn't really matter if the company has 10,000 employees or 100,000.
My argument is that there should not be companies this large at all. Everything above 100-500 people tends to breed a layer of pointless middle management layers and a host of supporting bullshit jobs, and in many cases the lack of internal competition leads to ossification.
So, yes, of course one may argue that without this one couldn't build something as complex as an airplane, a GPU or whatever... I'd say, keeping a cluster of teams as distinct companies, maybe with some sort of "service company" that deals with shit like payroll, travel expenses and whatnot, is actually more efficient as it offers a chance for people to get (literally) invested into their work and have the profits end up in their wages as well instead of everything being siphoned off in increasingly opaque ways. And it enforces proper working processes (e.g. documentation about interfaces), and so actually reduces the chance of stuff going wrong.
My argument is that there should not be companies this large at all. Everything above 100-500 people tends to breed a layer of pointless middle management layers and a host of supporting bullshit jobs, and in many cases the lack of internal competition leads to ossification.
So, yes, of course one may argue that without this one couldn't build something as complex as an airplane, a GPU or whatever... I'd say, keeping a cluster of teams as distinct companies, maybe with some sort of "service company" that deals with shit like payroll, travel expenses and whatnot, is actually more efficient as it offers a chance for people to get (literally) invested into their work and have the profits end up in their wages as well instead of everything being siphoned off in increasingly opaque ways. And it enforces proper working processes (e.g. documentation about interfaces), and so actually reduces the chance of stuff going wrong.