I don't want to add anything to this post. It contains 3 theses, with all of which I completely agree and believe that in all more or less mature companies it should be like this.
P.S. > I thought about it. I want to add. Any changes must be approached wisely, building a risk model and learning to avoid or mitigate all negative effects. What can be encountered here:
1. "Career Growth as EVP"
⚠️ Transparent tracks are good, but:
Risk of bureaucratization: competency matrices often turn into checklists for the sake of checklists. People start "playing grades" instead of solving real problems.
False predictability: promising "who you will become in 2 years" works poorly in a turbulent environment (reorganizations, strategy changes, hiring freezes).
Pressure on pace: when growth is formalized, a race for upgrades arises instead of meaningful development (especially among mid-levels).
Underestimation of horizontal development: not everyone needs managerial or "architectural" growth — strong applied specialists sometimes fall out of such systems.
Example: in large fintechs, you can see ideal career maps, but in reality, transitions are stalled by budgets and headcount restrictions — and this quickly undermines trust.
2. Scalable "Vibe"
Culture scales poorly without losses — the "startup vibe" at 5000+ people almost always becomes a simulation through processes.
Risk of "cultural theater": flexibility is declared, but in reality, layers of approvals, SLAs, and governance appear.
Conflict between efficiency and comfort: the larger the company, the stronger the pressure on metrics, and "humanity" begins to yield to KPIs.
Dependence on leaders: when top management changes, culture can quickly "reflash".
3. Employee Ownership (ESOP, profit-sharing)
⚠️ A powerful tool, but not universal:
Illusion of participation: for most employees, the share is too small to actually influence behavior (especially in later stages).
Risk of disappointment: options may "burn" or not materialize (e.g., lack of IPO).
Shift in motivation: focus may shift to short-term metrics affecting valuation, rather than long-term quality.
Inequality: ESOP conditions often vary greatly between levels and regions — this creates hidden tension.
Your game must be played with intelligence!
Comments
0No comments yet.
Sign in to join the discussion.