# Startup vs Large Corporation



## nonnaci (Sep 25, 2011)

Anyone here have experiences working in these two environments? How are they similar/different? Which ones have been more fulfilling to you?


----------



## jbking (Jun 4, 2010)

nonnaci said:


> Anyone here have experiences working in these two environments? How are they similar/different? Which ones have been more fulfilling to you?


Yes, I've worked in startups and large corporations in IT and product development roles as a Web Developer.

Similarities is that the work itself is still the same as I'm doing the magic of making a system do what it has to do. There are co-workers and office politics in both environments.

Startups tend to be less paperwork overall, each role may have to handle extra duties as there aren't people to handle specialized work, pay may be lower or in the form of options instead of cash in some ways. As an example, in this role I may set up my own machine from the parts as there isn't a team to handle this work. The challenge here is that the company may not always have adequate funding to succeed and so I have worked in some places that did go under.

Large corporations can be more bureaucratic and roles are more specialized. Thus, here there would be someone to set up my machine and make sure it is a developer's machine before I start working. There are likely more meetings here and formal structure. Here there can be that perception of stability that can also mean lower pay since one is working at a firm that has a reputation.

Most fulfilling for me was working at a post-secondary educational institution where I was a Research Assistant that was kind of like a startup in terms of having lots of autonomy yet also secured funding for the project.


----------



## nonnaci (Sep 25, 2011)

@*jbking*

How did autonomy compare between the startup vs corporate worlds? Also, was there large differences in culture?


----------



## jbking (Jun 4, 2010)

nonnaci said:


> How did autonomy compare between the startup vs corporate worlds?


In the startup side, there is more autonomy as there is more freedom to get things done however one wants to do something within reason. In large corporations there will be formal structures that dictate how something is to be done.

For example, if there is a production issue where a site appears to be down, here is how each would be solved:

Startup - I get onto the server and can look in the Event Viewer and logs to see what are the error messages and then go to the database server to see the same logs and Event Viewer. While there may be co-workers that can help me if I need it, I do have full freedom to fix this problem as soon as possible.

Large corporation - I request permission to the server or to get the logs. Then I can review the data and may have to make another request to access the database server. In this case, I may need to justify why I want what I want and go through much more process here as well as note what limitations I may have here as it could be that 3 or 4 people work together on the issue as a manager will be overseeing the incident and others will be communicating what can be confirmed and what fix could be done.



nonnaci said:


> Also, was there large differences in culture?


Yes though every company has its own culture. Even amongst different startups I've seen different cultures. Some may be more laid back and even though the company is losing money, there isn't any fear of the funding running out which I could find odd. In other cases, the money did run out and then I had to change jobs.


----------



## nonnaci (Sep 25, 2011)

@*jbking*

Thanks for the insight. It seems that startups are much more efficient at getting things done without having to cut across a web of red tape. I'm currently applying for jobs in the IT sector as an entry level and it seems like there's much more to learn (and to learn quickly) at a startup rather than having to specialize into particular roles at a corporation. Also, will most startups be hesitant to fly people in from long distances to conduct interviews (due to money shortages?) and so prefer only local (driving distance) candidates?


----------



## jbking (Jun 4, 2010)

nonnaci said:


> It seems that startups are much more efficient at getting things done without having to cut across a web of red tape.


To some degree. The question is how well do the people know how to get the job done or do they have to learn new things before having a solution. Remember that in the start-up, while there is more freedom, this means one may have to learn a broader skill set to get the answers where in a large corporation one can offload specific expertise, e.g. a network issue would get fixed by a network guy in a big company while in the start-up the 2 developers have to know how to fix the issue.



nonnaci said:


> I'm currently applying for jobs in the IT sector as an entry level and it seems like there's much more to learn (and to learn quickly) at a startup rather than having to specialize into particular roles at a corporation.


I'd likely argue things are about equal all in all. While the large corporation does one to specialize there can be the additional paperwork and protocol to learn that makes things a bit more equal since there can be that, "How do I do..." in large corporations that can be its own process.



nonnaci said:


> Also, will most startups be hesitant to fly people in from long distances to conduct interviews (due to money shortages?) and so prefer only local (driving distance) candidates?


Yes though there can exceptions. In my case, I got interviewed in Chatham, Ontario for a job in Seattle, Washington because the CEO was from Chatham and was visiting his parents for Christmas. Start-ups have to be careful with money as it may run out before the company has enough revenue coming in to pay the bills.


----------



## dark_angel (Oct 21, 2013)

Wal-mart much? Large corporations are more challenging and offers more opportunities for advancement. Of course, start ups can potentially become large corporations. Wal-mart was once a mom and pop shop.


----------



## PowerShell (Feb 3, 2013)

Corporations are safer in terms of steady paycheck and a set hierarchy. Startups are riskier because they can fail but they can also hit it big. In terms of work, corporations are more specialized and has a set job role along with specific protocols and chain of command to get things done. Startups your role is not as defined.


----------



## AriesLilith (Jan 6, 2013)

I work in the IT field too, as a programmer/developer. I have worked for a multinational company in development projects, and my experience with startups are perhaps only through interviews or outsourcing companies (they barely count since these companies sends you to other companies' projects), or from what I could hear of.

Startups can be riskier if they are not solid/stable or have people with emough expertise to keep things running. One thing that big companies (usually) have is a set of procedures and standards for development projects that makes a whole difference and I have personally found to be very important. I was once in an interview with a growing company, and it was scary when they told me how they don't have any procedures and are developing according to what the client told them in person, without documentation nor planning. It was then obvious to me why the company had bad reputation of requiring so many extra hours of work from its employees (daily extra hours), of course it goes that way when the company doesn't have solid planning.
Not to mention that lack of planning and documentation are bad for development in the long term.
Also, I have heard of cases in which the paychecks were very late. I would never ever tolerate it as I have bills to pay and I can't imagine what it's like for a company to go bankrupt.

In the end, it really depends on the company. A positive point of startups is that since there are fewer people, the bosses probably value the employees more. You are also able to accompany the growth of your company and learn a lot.

Lastly, I would say that often what matters is the project itself rather than the company you work for. For example, in the same big companies many projects can be happening at the same time, and some projects can be badly managed while some are going well. What matters here would be if the manager is doing things well and values the team members, if the development is well organized and planned, and if the team is nice and efficient.

Also, I'm not sure how things are in other countries, but I'd advise you to see what area or technologies you'd like to work with and stick with it. Some coworkers of mine are fine with learning different technologies altogether, but in the long run many employers might be searching for specialists in different areas rather than a jack of all trades and master of none. For example, I work with Java and I prefer to stick with it.


----------



## PowerShell (Feb 3, 2013)

AriesLilith said:


> I work in the IT field too, as a programmer/developer. I have worked for a multinational company in development projects, and my experience with startups are perhaps only through interviews or outsourcing companies (they barely count since these companies sends you to other companies' projects), or from what I could hear of.
> 
> Startups can be riskier if they are not solid/stable or have people with emough expertise to keep things running. One thing that big companies (usually) have is a set of procedures and standards for development projects that makes a whole difference and I have personally found to be very important. I was once in an interview with a growing company, and it was scary when they told me how they don't have any procedures and are developing according to what the client told them in person, without documentation nor planning. It was then obvious to me why the company had bad reputation of requiring so many extra hours of work from its employees (daily extra hours), of course it goes that way when the company doesn't have solid planning.
> Not to mention that lack of planning and documentation are bad for development in the long term.
> ...


That's one issue I notice with a good chunk of IT people. They aren't process minded and think they're working this magic and whiz pow I whipped it up and threw and carp together.

I'm not sure if it's because processes are boring (and can be way more inefficient if the process is made wrong or goes out of date). I mean even having a simple checklist for a new user setup. 

This seems to happen in any smaller organizations I've been to or understaffed large organizations. Its a pet peeve of mine and I know it drives me nuts when people are throwing stuff together and wasting time trying to refigure out a routine task that should be defined.

Sent from my LG-VS450PP using Tapatalk


----------



## AriesLilith (Jan 6, 2013)

PowerShell said:


> That's one issue I notice with a good chunk of IT people. They aren't process minded and think they're working this magic and whiz pow I whipped it up and threw and carp together.
> 
> I'm not sure if it's because processes are boring (and can be way more inefficient if the process is made wrong or goes out of date). I mean even having a simple checklist for a new user setup.
> 
> ...


Yeah... I'm currently in a team in which we are being prepared to take over the maintenance responsiblities of some applications, yet there is barely any documentation, source control (like SVN) and yet we need to understand everything (what each part of the code does, how to install or deploy applications and so on) almost by ourselves. It has been a challenge and I have never seen something like this! I'm used to planning and all the fancy procedures and I prefer to waste a bit more time on them than be sorry later. But the team belongs to a big company with serious procedures, so we will implement procedures in the client soon to take care of the applications.

And checklist for new developers helps a lot. I don't like configurations and it takes much longer to figure out the right configurations for my development environment (PC) for a certain project than to follow an already defined list of what to install or configure.


----------



## PowerShell (Feb 3, 2013)

I am a contractor working for a government agency in Texas and when I ask if there is documentation, they think a perfectly acceptable answer is, "I'm my head." This is one of those smaller environments.

Sent from my LG-VS450PP using Tapatalk


----------



## AriesLilith (Jan 6, 2013)

Once, I was in an interview with a growing company and they told me that they don't have any procedure when it comes to development. They just talk with the client and do what they say, without documentation as they need fast development. They even called it "dynamic development".  Then they asked me if I'm autonomous (aka if I can deal with any difficulty by myself since everyone would be too busy to help) and if I mind working extra hours frequently (probably due to lack of procedures and management).

I later had to decline the offer due to the impression they gave me and due to the already bad reputation they have that I came to know through my coworkers (apparently some companies does not realize how treating their employees badly is going to make them look bad for future possible employees and talents).


----------



## nonnaci (Sep 25, 2011)

Any experiences on how your experiences differ from different stage startups? I know this is bit fine-grained but I'm looking at several really early ones (right after series A funding) where I'd be a large part of setting the future standards. In the longer term, do you guys have any insights as to what sort of practices have led to successful acquisition/buy-outs?


----------



## Alles_Paletti (May 15, 2013)

Good posts in this thread. I'd advise to look at who is running the startup too. How many years of management experience do they have (in and outside the startup?). Are they capable of listening, self-reflection, do they have discipline?

Many startups fail because of relations in the management going sour after the initial enthusiasm, or people who have a good business idea, intellect, charisma, and ego/courage but have no actual management skills, neglect necessary chores and refuse to take hard advice from others. 

Working in a start-up that is capable of getting long-term funding and has capable, experienced management is just amazing; big companies can't compete by a long shot for me in terms of job satisfaction and feeling involved.


----------



## PowerShell (Feb 3, 2013)

Alles_Paletti said:


> Good posts in this thread. I'd advise to look at who is running the startup too. How many years of management experience do they have (in and outside the startup?). Are they capable of listening, self-reflection, do they have discipline?


That's definitely a good point! I know I'm looking to get my MBA soon because it seems a lot of people have great ideas but no business sense. I have some business sense but want to affirm it with an MBA. Management definitely is a big part in a startup's success.


----------

