Working for a VERY small company

[embrassezla]

I currently work in an environment which is basically a compound of 4,000 engineers and scientists. I'm still trying to figure out whether or not I belong here. It's not a company, but it can feel very corporate at times. I'm wondering if I might be better suited working at a small company of <20 employees, where the atmosphere is much more laid back.

I'm wondering if anyone has any insight as to what it's like to work for a very small company. The kind of company I'd be looking at would be in software development, but I'm really trying to get a feel for small company dynamics in general - in any industry.

Pros/Cons?

[wordsmith]

I really enjoyed my time working for very small employers, myself (so much, in fact, that when I went to my current job, which has more than 100 in our central office, where I am, and more in outlying offices, I was a bit apprehensive about the shift in atmosphere).

My first job was with a grassroots nonprofit in which there were seven full-time staffers, one or two part-timers. Generally no more than four or five people kicking around the office at one time, since some people's positions took them out into the community during office hours. Very intimate, very casual, very relaxed, in this case. The upside is that the camaraderie is quick to develop, you get to know people pretty well pretty quickly when there are only a few people to talk to and bounce things off of, and also, the atmosphere was conducive to a team sort of feeling. The downside to that is if you clash with anybody...there's nowhere to hide from somebody if you don't enjoy them all that much, or if there's any type of personality conflict.

My second job, the one I just finished six and a half years at, was a small newspaper office with a receptionist/admin/bookkeeper/office manager, a GM, an ad sales manager, a publisher, an editor/reporter/writer/photog (me), a social editor/reporter/writer/photog, a sports editor/reporter/writer/photog, an ad production manager/graphic designer, and two people in a satellite office in another small town, one of whom we saw once a day, the other only talked to on the phone. There were also a couple of part-time stringers. So, ten people that were seen on a daily basis. The downside in that case was that, as shown by people's titles, when the staff is small, many of us wore multiple hats, and it was a given that we were often, well, all the time, really, stretched very thin. For the work we were doing (putting out two weekly newspapers with barely sufficient staff for one), we didn't have a small staff, we were UNDERstaffed. You have to look out for that. In our case, a staff that small was an indication on the part of our corporate parent of the desire to slash operational costs and get a product put without having to pay for the manpower to do it. And, again, if you don't like somebody, you're stuck with them, there are no buffers and they're ALWAYS there.

The dynamics, though, of a small workplace, have always been something I've appreciated. Working now for a larger employer (but still small in some regards, as my particular team has a dozen people on it, and they're the ones I really work with), the atmosphere is more officey, less homey, there's a more pervasive sense of the importance of bureaucracy to keep a larger office running efficiently, which I hadn't really had to deal with before, because in a smaller office, having a lot of bullshit steps is often needlessly complicating things. It's not a company, where I work now, and it's not corporate, but because of the sheer volume of employees, there are organizational ways it has to work in which it feels more corporate.

[winneythepooh7]

When I worked for a very small employer, things were very, very unorganized. They kind of made up policies and procedures as they went along, which made my job as a manager, very, very difficult, if not impossible at times.

Secondly, being a "mom and pop" type of atmosphere, I also got stuck with other peoples work CONSTANTLY which was one of my main reasons for leaving.

Thirdly, being small, they didn't have a lot of money to pay for important things like higher salaries and benefits.

[wordsmith]

Very true that smaller companies/orgs/employers often do NOT have the numbers to offer really great benefits packages. My parents run a family business, and there's no way in the world they could offer benefits, period. Theyr'e lucky to be able to ensure themselves, as self-employed, and even that's a hardship.

[embrassezla]

The upside is that the camaraderie is quick to develop, you get to know people pretty well pretty quickly when there are only a few people to talk to and bounce things off of, and also, the atmosphere was conducive to a team sort of feeling. The downside to that is if you clash with anybody...there's nowhere to hide from somebody if you don't enjoy them all that much, or if there's any type of personality conflict.
Yeah, this is something I've been thinking about a lot. I guess there's no real way to know ahead of time if you're gonna have a problem with someone, unless it's clear in the interview.

The downside in that case was that, as shown by people's titles, when the staff is small, many of us wore multiple hats, and it was a given that we were often, well, all the time, really, stretched very thin.
I consider myself a generalist (as opposed to an expert), and this is something that I think I'd like, in theory. Of course, there's a difference between having a small number of people who all contribute bits to different functions, and being understaffed and stretched thin trying to get everything done.

It's not a company, where I work now, and it's not corporate, but because of the sheer volume of employees, there are organizational ways it has to work in which it feels more corporate.
Exactly what I'm currently dealing with.

[embrassezla]

When I worked for a very small employer, things were very, very unorganized. They kind of made up policies and procedures as they went along, which made my job as a manager, very, very difficult, if not impossible at times.
Was it a young company? I think I'd be wary of working for a very young company, for exactly this reason.

Thirdly, being small, they didn't have a lot of money to pay for important things like higher salaries and benefits.
This is a good point. As far as I can tell, I'd be sacrificing pay and some benefits to work for a smaller company, which I'd have to factor into any decision I'd make about working there.

[wordsmith]

Yeah, this is something I've been thinking about a lot. I guess there's no real way to know ahead of time if you're gonna have a problem with someone, unless it's clear in the interview.

One thing I noticed, though, is that if you HAVE to work with somebody, you learn to be more tolerant of their quirks than you might be if you could easily just avoid working with them. In short, you learn how to get along out of necessity, which isn't a bad skill to have to develop. It explains how I was generally able to work pretty well with my publisher for a half dozen years at the paper, when neither of us was really one another's particular cup of tea. We found ways to make it work, because there was no other real choice, and I think that each of us came to a better understanding of the other person, though he's not one of the people (and there are people) I exchange friendly catching up e-mails with now that I've moved on. So it's not all bad to have "challenging" people in a small staff situation.


I consider myself a generalist (as opposed to an expert), and this is something that I think I'd like, in theory. Of course, there's a difference between having a small number of people who all contribute bits to different functions, and being understaffed and stretched thin trying to get everything done.

It's very definitely something that I appreciated, since I never got bored with the work, and felt like I got to have an active hand in everything, for sure. There are def. two sides to the coin.

When I started that job, I was new to the industry. Had I not been, I'd have known questions to ask about workload, etc. that would have given me a clear picture of the kind of thinly stretched environment that it was. But as it was, I had no context to compare it with, so I didn't even realize for a long time that our workload WAS so crazy. So having the experience to know what kind of questions to ask to get a good picture of the workload to staff ratio is really helpful. I mean, I'm sure I asked what a typical day was, because I always do, but in this case, I had nothing to compare it to to know if that typical day was insane or not. As far as I knew, that was just how the industry went.

[embrassezla]

Yeah, I feel like personality must become VERY important when working for a small company, because you work so closely with a small number of people. Almost like they are a group of friends in addition to being coworkers. This is kind of intimidating in a sense, as an outsider, because not only do you need to have the proper background/credentials, but they have to LIKE you, and you them.

In my current position, there are people here who are my friends, and people who are my coworkers. They rarely intersect.

[winneythepooh7]

The company I think was originally started in 2000 in a different region of my state. They started the program I worked for around 2005.

Wordsmith brings up a lot of things I dealt with regulary with other employees. The company itself was very laid back, so therefore, that trickled down to most of the staff. I am used to working in very fast paced, professional, "by the books", even somewhat "cut-throat" kind of environments. Of course, that did not mesh in the smaller environment of which I was employed at the time.

I ended up spending more time doing damage control and putting out fires that stemmed from the other employees, than actually doing MY work.

Also, MY boss who was supposed to be responsible for all these other employees had no backbone and always made me responsible to deal with issues he should have confronted head on, but did not.

[wordsmith]

Yeah, I feel like personality must become VERY important when working for a small company, because you work so closely with a small number of people. Almost like they are a group of friends in addition to being coworkers. This is kind of intimidating in a sense, as an outsider, because not only do you need to have the proper background/credentials, but they have to LIKE you, and you them.

In my current position, there are people here who are my friends, and people who are my coworkers. They rarely intersect.

In my experience, VERY definitely a MARKED difference, maybe the most marked difference. As somebody who gets along easily with people, I was always able to get along with the folks who were "challenging," and really find friends in the ones who were cool.

I have to say that I do miss that, now that I'm in an atmosphere where "These are your coworkers, and while you might become friends with some of them, don't be surprised if people maintain a business-like distance in some cases." That's hard to get used to when you're more used to the former. We did just have a lawyer join our team who is coming from one of the very, very small outlying offices in a small town, and I can tell that he's used to the more camaraderie, less the "people down a hall with their door closed and you don't talk to them much" thing. He feels my pain, hah!

[meatwad]

I work for a company of less than 10. It's not better, it's just different. Whole different set of issues. I get benefits, but because of that, no raise in years.

[wordsmith]

Hah, meat, I had both subpar benefits AND no raise!

[winneythepooh7]

I actually find that I am closer to my co-workers where I am now compared to the smaller environment where I was. I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that we have more in common and all have the same philosophies and such about our work. I think this is just sheer luck, and not necessarily anything based on size of a company. Even though I work for the largest home health care company in NYC, our program still consists of only 4 people primarily.

[embrassezla]

Oooh, that's a good one. How do you tactfully find out about eligibility for raises in an interview?

[embrassezla]

I find it hard to make friends here mainly because so many people are plugged into the Matrix of this place, it seems. God forbid I forget to wear my business area lanyard, lest I be shunned.

[meatwad]

Hah, meat, I had both subpar benefits AND no raise!

I was grandfathered in from when our industry was a big moneymaker. New employees don't get those benefits anymore. And while it's nice to have health insurance, I never really use it while my bills go up and up every year with no new money to pay them. I've made do, but it's starting to get close to a breaking point. Which is another reason I'm looking for another job.

[wordsmith]

I find it hard to make friends here mainly because so many people are plugged into the Matrix of this place, it seems. God forbid I forget to wear my business area lanyard, lest I be shunned.

I'm finding there to be invisible walls between the different legal teams here, which I knew, logically, occurred in larger work environments, but is still a little jarring. Like, the housing and domestic team work mere steps from my side of the building, but hardly interact with the public benefits team at all, maybe a nod in the hallway if you pass somebody. And forget the municipal court division, they all work on a completely different floor. People aren't unfriendly, they just basically associate with "their own." That's way different from working with a small group where everyone worked pretty collaboratively.

[wordsmith]

Oooh, that's a good one. How do you tactfully find out about eligibility for raises in an interview?

I'd imagine same is in an interview with a larger employer...at the point at which I began working for the paper, I was so focused on just GETTING a job, that that stuff was secondary to me.

[winneythepooh7]

I always just ask in an interview as well. I always ask about opportunities for advancement. Where I was previously, with the small employer, I was very much involved in our day to day fiscal stuff, so I knew that it would probably be years before I saw a raise. The program was just too small and not bringing in $$$ fast enough to justify a raise for me.

[red]

i worked for a small company, but maybe not as small as you're thinking. less than 60 employees in one office. it was not a new company. that was almost sort of worse, because you had these incompetent lifers who had always done things a certain ass backwards way, and it was really hard to get anything done. even when a decision would come down from management, it was impossible to get everyone on board, and it was just total chaos. always putting out fires. very disorganized.

and the benefits sucked, although i found there was more room to negotiate raises since a small company has more to lose if an employee leaves.

[meatwad]

I fucking hate it here. Why can't I just grow some balls and leave? :mad:

[and1grad]

I'm finding there to be invisible walls between the different legal teams here, which I knew, logically, occurred in larger work environments, but is still a little jarring. Like, the housing and domestic team work mere steps from my side of the building, but hardly interact with the public benefits team at all, maybe a nod in the hallway if you pass somebody. And forget the municipal court division, they all work on a completely different floor. People aren't unfriendly, they just basically associate with "their own." That's way different from working with a small group where everyone worked pretty collaboratively.
Thats how it is at my job. Incidentally, "I got a brother named Sodapop." ;)

[and1grad]

I always ask about opportunities for advancement.
BTW, embra, this is interview code for "What about raises?" Interviewers know what you're asking when you ask this and its perfectly ok to ask. Maybe not your FIRST question tho. :)

[wordsmith]

It is fair, though, when they ask you what YOU'RE looking for in a job/employer (as good interviewers tend to do), to say, "I'm looking for a place I can grow and advance." Same diff.

[winneythepooh7]

Oh something else I noticed about working for small companies.........be prepared for them "taking it personally" if someone wants to advance their career or not "settle" for just what they can offer.

One of my old bosses still barely speaks to me because I chose to move on from there, and I still have to interact with their company fairly regularly. They also had a hard time understanding that COL is NYC is a lot different then COL in more rural NY, so that impacted on major staff turnover as well. Maybe their company was just not a good fit for a major urban area...........although they WERE thriving in a more rural area.

[pisces2473]

Was it a young company? I think I'd be wary of working for a very young company, for exactly this reason.
I currently work for a young company, and like Winney said, at times, it's been very disorganized with a lot of "making things up as we go along," especially as the company has grown exponentially in the past 2 years. It's been really tough, as some of you know from personal discussions with me, but I think they are getting their acts together.

I've worked for a small company that's been in business for 20 years and was pretty well-organized. The pay sucked though, or else I would have stayed a long time.

I worked for a large university with a LOT of organization, some would say OVER-organization.

[wordsmith]

My last small employer was with a newspaper that was more than 150 years old. My first job, the nonprofit, was mere MONTHS old when I started with them. There were a lot of benefits, in my experience, working with someplace really fledgling...I got to have an active role in actually designing what my work environment and experience was...lots of freedom and ownership, which, for my personality type, was ideal. I basically got to write my own job description. A def. perk to working for a young org, and a collaborative one.

[winneythepooh7]

Yeah, I did get to design my job description where I was last, and to an extent, still where I am at present. However in the last small place, there were still too many problems overall with the company for the amount of independence I had to still weigh heavily as a pro.

[steph78]

I work for a small engineering consulting firm with <20 employees - I've been there about 5 years. Before that I worked for the largest structural firm in town so I guess I've seen both ends of the spectrum. When I worked for the large company, things were very organized and the process was very set out - people got pigeonholed into doing one type of design and they'd do the same thing over and over for each project. Made for a very efficient/profitable firm, but it got kind of mind-numbing doing the same thing over and over again and the environment was very anti-social. I kind of hated it there after awhile, felt like I wasn't very important/valuable.

At the smaller firm I feel like my bosses took much more interest in me developing my overall skill set rather than just learning to do one thing well - there was a lot more variety in the kinds of projects I worked on and I got a lot more responsibility faster (just out of necessity since there were fewer people). Also, it was a much friendlier/more welcoming atmosphere - the company really treats employees like family, everyone knows each other's spouses/kids, etc. On the flip side, things at the smaller firm are much less organized - the president spends too much time doing design work of his own to keep on top of "big-picture" type stuff, and since the firm is so small money is not as free-flowing - my pay and benefits are competitive but there is less in the way of perks. And like Winney said, I have done my fair share of helping put out fires for other people when they get behind on their projects...which puts me behind on my own stuff, but oh well.

In the end the smaller company has worked out better for me - because they have so little time for hiring and training new people I am valuable to them and as long as I keep pulling my weight in terms of getting billable work done, they are extremely flexible and let me do a lot of stuff on my own terms just to keep me happy rather than have to find/train a replacement for me. After having my baby they agreed to let me stay on at 10 hours/week, and I telecommute entirely from home. So that's pretty sweet - I doubt a big company would have been that flexible for me.

[Kragthorpe]

I was working for a firm where there were 100+ employees, which is large for a law firm, and now work at a firm where there are just 5 of us, and with some other practitioners and staffs in the office total less than 10. I'll tell you that I miss some of the more professional relationships I had before (we're far less serious here than there), but I really enjoy doing my own thing and being free of some unrealistic expectations that were there too.

Good luck to you!

[wordsmith]

At the smaller firm I feel like my bosses took much more interest in me developing my overall skill set rather than just learning to do one thing well - there was a lot more variety in the kinds of projects I worked on and I got a lot more responsibility faster (just out of necessity since there were fewer people).


Yup, also my experience with a small employer. Being a jack of all trades, tons of variety. Now I'm much more specialized in my duties, and there's a pretty strict organization for who does what, and, more importantly what you CAN'T ask person X to do. In some ways, it takes the pressure off to be more a cog in the wheel, because it's not like I can be asked to do it all (such as was the case at my last job, where I could be and was plugged into anybody's role as needed). I don't even know HOW to do it all. There are upsides and downsides to each setup, though.


In the end the smaller company has worked out better for me - because they have so little time for hiring and training new people I am valuable to them and as long as I keep pulling my weight in terms of getting billable work done, they are extremely flexible and let me do a lot of stuff on my own terms just to keep me happy rather than have to find/train a replacement for me. After having my baby they agreed to let me stay on at 10 hours/week, and I telecommute entirely from home. So that's pretty sweet - I doubt a big company would have been that flexible for me.


Also my experience at a small employer...loads of flexibility, if I was caught up, I could take an afternoon off if need be without it being a big issue, and could get time off at relatively last minute. Very relaxed in that manner. Not like that at a more bureaucracy-driven employer where everything is very by the book because there are so many people it would be chaos if it were.

[winneythepooh7]

I'm still able to be pretty flexible with my schedule, even at a huge employer. But again, we are just a tiny program in the midst of a huge company. Still able to be a jack of all trades as well. I think it just depends on where you land because often things aren't really all that different with things like flexibility and duties in a small vs. larger company.

Earlier, I still stand by what I said were problematic issues though with that small company. It also really comes down to the money in the end (in my experience), because where I am now, they can afford more higher educated and trained staff and they can afford to create positions that didn't exist where I was before (ie. people who have Master's degrees and several years of working experience, a f/t administrative assistant).

[embrassezla]

This is great stuff guys, thanks!

Re: money. That's my biggest issue with making a possible move. I can afford quite a large cut in pay and still be able to survive, but I've gotten accustomed to saving for emergencies and being able to pay down my mortgage aggressively. I don't know how willing I'd be to give those things up.

[spokes]

to me it is always a bad idea to take a step backwards in terms of pay.

the downside i would see to working for a small company would most lilely be things likee benefits, internal support/infrastructure, no careeer development planning etc. also if the company was dysfunctional it would be magnified.

the upside would be thatyou might get to do more stuff, lack of career planning/goal seeting etc.

I've always worked for large facelss corproartions and have never had troulbe getting the flexibility i need to get time off and do other stuff - there is always goign to be politics wherever you work......

[embrassezla]

to me it is always a bad idea to take a step backwards in terms of pay.
I definitely disagree. I'm not motivated by money, assuming I make enough to pay my bills. Also, I'm not talking about having to make serious lifestyle changes to accomodate a pay cut - I'm talking about not being able to save as much. I am able to save quite a bit now.

[wordsmith]

to me it is always a bad idea to take a step backwards in terms of pay.


Definitely untrue, IMO. There are certainly situations in which taking a pay cut still evens out to a better deal in the end - Off the top of my head, a pay cut is worth it to me if the job is in a lower COL area where my dollar goes further, if a much better benefits package sufficiently offsets the decrease, and if the tradeoff is more flexibiilty if I have a family. There are doubtless other contexts in which it's not categorically bad idea to take a pay cut, as well.

[pisces2473]

I took a pay cut a few yrs ago to enter a completely different field and although it was tough during those times, I don't regret it NOW. I love the field I'm in (today, ha).

[winneythepooh7]

I've only had to really take a pay cut once (during grad school) and it really was worth it back then for the experience I was getting, as well as flexibility.

In my field however, most of the highest paying positions go to people who work in the administrative side of social work. Program directors, company owners, etc. Honestly, though, to me personally, I really don' t know if I would want their job because basically, you are working 24/7 (so the "high" pay really is not "that high") and you are under a tremendous amount of stress 24/7.

Forget family friendly as well. The VP of my company who is very high risk for pregnancy to begin with, and it took her years to get preggers, finally is with child. She passed out from stress at work last week in front of all of us, and has been home on bed rest since.

I really personally wouldn't want that. Sacrificing overall quality life for more money is NEVER worth it IMHO.

Also, in positions like I mentioned, I feel that you really never have much job security, because let's face it, even if your staff underneath you don't listen to you, you are still the one blamed and let go when THEY fuck up. I've seen it too many times to count.