<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Big Companies Are The Best&#8230; In Maintaining Status Quo</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.brodzinski.com/2010/01/big-companies-status-quo.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.brodzinski.com/2010/01/big-companies-status-quo.html</link>
	<description>Dealing with software projects in real life</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 19:07:34 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Pawel Brodzinski</title>
		<link>http://blog.brodzinski.com/2010/01/big-companies-status-quo.html#comment-3372</link>
		<dc:creator>Pawel Brodzinski</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 Jan 2010 18:30:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.brodzinski.com/?p=1582#comment-3372</guid>
		<description>Derek,

I could use the same parallel to Polish government except in our case it is even worse, since our democracy is way less mature than yours and even in the small scale ofter there are serious issues with effective actions.

As we heading to three major elections in 18 months from today defending status quo became the key goal for every significant party out there.

But enough on politics. It wasn&#039;t my intention to start a political debate here. I agree with you that model of small and efficient versus big and focused on itself works not only for companies but is more general pattern and we can see it in all sorts of organizations.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Derek,</p>
<p>I could use the same parallel to Polish government except in our case it is even worse, since our democracy is way less mature than yours and even in the small scale ofter there are serious issues with effective actions.</p>
<p>As we heading to three major elections in 18 months from today defending status quo became the key goal for every significant party out there.</p>
<p>But enough on politics. It wasn&#8217;t my intention to start a political debate here. I agree with you that model of small and efficient versus big and focused on itself works not only for companies but is more general pattern and we can see it in all sorts of organizations.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Derek Huether</title>
		<link>http://blog.brodzinski.com/2010/01/big-companies-status-quo.html#comment-3369</link>
		<dc:creator>Derek Huether</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 Jan 2010 16:59:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.brodzinski.com/?p=1582#comment-3369</guid>
		<description>Though your post, from my understanding, is comparing a startup management structure (or lack of) to a larger multilayer management structure, I actually read a parallel to something else.  By substituting your use of manager or executive with politician, I read a post about Government.  Granted, this isn&#039;t a post about politics...or is it?  When the company is small (local government), things seem to get done rather quickly.  Everyone is strongly motivated because they are empowered.  Every action seems to impact or benefit them and everyone else.  As the company gets bigger (jurisdictional government), “leaders” need to think more strategically, not just tactically.  Things start to slow down. This layer then becomes isolated from its constituents and aligns itself with a group of peers.  Unfortunately, when business grows even bigger (federal), there appears to be a paradigm shift.  “Leaders” find themselves becoming alienated from those they are to represent.  Their motivation becomes less of getting things done and more of how to keep their jobs or align with special interests.  The bigger the “business” the less effective the leaders. 

Best Regards,
Derek
http://twitter.com/derekhuether</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Though your post, from my understanding, is comparing a startup management structure (or lack of) to a larger multilayer management structure, I actually read a parallel to something else.  By substituting your use of manager or executive with politician, I read a post about Government.  Granted, this isn&#8217;t a post about politics&#8230;or is it?  When the company is small (local government), things seem to get done rather quickly.  Everyone is strongly motivated because they are empowered.  Every action seems to impact or benefit them and everyone else.  As the company gets bigger (jurisdictional government), “leaders” need to think more strategically, not just tactically.  Things start to slow down. This layer then becomes isolated from its constituents and aligns itself with a group of peers.  Unfortunately, when business grows even bigger (federal), there appears to be a paradigm shift.  “Leaders” find themselves becoming alienated from those they are to represent.  Their motivation becomes less of getting things done and more of how to keep their jobs or align with special interests.  The bigger the “business” the less effective the leaders. </p>
<p>Best Regards,<br />
Derek<br />
<a href="http://twitter.com/derekhuether" rel="nofollow">http://twitter.com/derekhuether</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

