One of my favourite sayings, other than that great politician Tony Blair’s “now is not the time for soundbites [but] I can feel the hand of history on my shoulder”, is that “everything in life is a trade-off”.
Now, this saying can be applied to many situations, be it the hassle you put up with from your other half when staying at the pub for ‘one for the road’, the pushback from your body when you’ve gone the additional mile in training, or the benefit of deferred gratification when you make a spending splurge after a long period of parsimony.
However, in recruitment terms, the phrase is usually applied to the choice of joining a large firm or a small firm; each has its pros but each also its cons. For example, a large firm usually has more stable revenue flow and so more predictable variable remuneration and investment practices. A large firm tends to have a wider product range, deeper pockets to absorb losses, a greater ability to reinvest in technology, or be a loss-leader to establish a foothold in a new market.
Conversely, larger firms can have greater separation from management with the end client, be slow to move, be more inefficient in the use of resources, and struggle to produce bespoke, client specific-solutions. They also find it more difficult to engender a unique and ‘familial’ corporate culture. Employees’ roles are usually highly defined with little scope for entrepreneurial behaviour or mindsets. Size, usually, confers respectability—or at least substance—upon an organisation, aided by the fact that more spending can be devoted to influencing the public’s perception of it.
Smaller firms are by their nature unencumbered by the administrative baggage of their larger brethren, are obliged to be more short-term in their outlook, and have to weigh up investment decisions more carefully as each one could be business-critical. An employee in a smaller firm will usually have greater breadth to his or her role as well as an increased requirement to ‘roll up their sleeves’ and wear multiple hats in order to succeed. Entrepreneurialism is usually welcome, but there are fewer places to hide should you not deliver.
In my experience, the smaller firm is the more attractive option to most senior candidates looking to make a break from the limitations of the large corporates, and if an equity stake can be agreed at the outset, then this is doubly attractive.
Of course, the ultimate iteration is to make an almost complete break and work for oneself, and while this has many attractions, the unpredictability of income and lack of support, be it technical, tactical or strategic, can be tremendously frustrating. Simply getting paid for work done can be a colossal challenge—one invoice from a small consulting firm I know is now almost two months late in being paid by a major bank, which can lead to some very awkward cash-flow discussions.
Far be it from me to point my skeletal finger as to who the culprit might be though.
As ever, do let me know your thoughts. Drop me a line at paul@localhost
Comments