Share what you know with millions of people
Focus is the best place to turn what you know into remarkable content
0
Would you rather be the CEO of a 100 person company or a 10,000 person company? Why?
Events
- Lead Nurturing 202: The Next Generation May 31 @ 11 am PT
- Marketing Thought Leaders: A Conversation with Jamie Mallinger June 1 @ 11 am PT
- The Tricks to Paid Media June 6 @ 11 am PT
- Display Advertising for Brand Awareness June 20 @ 11 am PT
Related Activity
9 Answers
For me, a no brainer--100 people. First of all, depending on the industry, that business will typically have sales from $10 to $20 million or more. So unless your primary goal is extreme wealth and industry or world domination, a 100 person business can support an excellent lifestyle for owner and employees. But more importantly:
1. Smaller companies have stronger cultures that are easier to maintain and nurture, and to me, culture is everything.
2. Smaller companies are closer to their customers and almost always provide better service.
3. Smaller companies get to focus on product, service and people. Larger companies spend huge amounts of time and resources on operational matters, from real estate to tax and HR matters to legal issues.
4. Smaller companies are ALWAYS more fun, and fun matters.
5. Owning a smaller company usually gives you much more control over your time, and that is one of the main reasons many people choose to work for themselves to begin with.
6. Odds are if you have 10,000 employees you are answering to other masters (shareholders, banks, etc.). With 100 employees you are more likely to be in control of your own work and your own destiny.
So, while the 10,000 employee owner might have a jet while I fly commercial, I wouldn't even be tempted to trade places with him/her. But that's me ;-)
Having been the CEO of 3 different companies of varying sizes, i would prefer the 10,000 employee company for many of the reasons that Mitch mentioned.
While I very much enjoyed the start up and small company atmosphere and culture, the larger organizations offer more strategic opportunities, greater financial leverage and the ability to grow via acquisition.
i always enjoyed assimilating an organization into our culture and taking that best of the acquired company's culture/technology/processes and blending them with ours.
We never took a heavy handed approach but rather chose to learn from each experience. Size has both advantages and disadvantages. That's why there are horses for courses.
In today's economy, I'd rather have the smaller organization. You can change more rapidly and I think create more ownership and engagement amongst your group. Large companies can't move as rapidly and I also think that when they fall, they fall much harder with less chance of a quick recovery. I would concur with Michael Hess on this one. Particularly from a human resources persepctive - I am positive a smaller organization would be able to manage more effectively because they are closer to the 'floor' as it were. They also would have a better understanding of client needs, in my opinion. Having fun and having a real purpose means more to me than just the big bucks. I believe you can have both with a smaller group.
I prefer 100 person. It is hard to manage human with emotions.
10000 for sure as it could give both the opportunity to manage directly 100 persons in your team and to have in the same time some strategic issues to discuss with members of your team. At such a level, management isn't a real problem as you're facing some high caliber managers who will act as proposal forces having submitted their options to your agreement through a clever process !
Having been CEO of a 150 person company and GM of a division of 2500, I would say that the size of the company has nothing to do with the reward, ease, fun or control that you have as CEO.
The real issues that drive "how good" a company is to be CEO of are (in no particular order):
- The board - who's on it, how "in synch" are they, do they have a long view or a short view. The board of a 100 person company can be worse than a 10,000 person one!
- Public vs. Private -- I'd pick private any day of the week.
- Market/industry -- it's much more fun to be in a solid industry rather than trying to "re-engineer" your way to someplace sustainable.
- Culture -- are the people in the company positive, engaged and team-oriented. If not, it's like dragging a heavy weight through mud. I've seen great cultures in large companies and crummy cultures in small ones as well as the reverse.
- Finances -- it should be obvious that a solid balance sheet and reasonable P&L are more fun to work from than too many financial issues. Of course, as CEO, you've got to keep finances moving in a good direction, but better to start from 0 rather than have to dig out of too big a hole.
1000. i will have more budget, variety in my leadership team with dedicated portfolios to effectively bring in change, and good life for a lot of people.
Depends on the compensation and the vision. Another half baked question. Perhaps the question should be ... What is a good question? Why not a question that truly digs into the difference between the dynamics of small and large business organizations.
I would prefer 1oo; leaning to answer "when" - when 1 person can function and think as technology and innovation are at hand --- creativity-at-work (CAW);for 100 persons enough to create several team(s) and shuffle them around to meet business process requirement
Have a great day
Answer This Question