11–20 of 29 posts
I personally witnessed this professionally in ministry settings as well as tech companies. Very interesting.
In the chapter "Plans and Plants" of "Parkinson's Law" (see http://www.amazon.com/Parkinsons-Law-Cyril-Northcote-Parkins... ) he makes the point that
"During a period of exciting discovery or progress there is no time to plan the perfect headquarters. The time for that comes later, when all the important work has been done. Perfection, we know, is finality; and finality is death."
Parkinson reviews a number of headquarters buildings: League of Nations, Pentagon, St. Peter’s Basilica, Versailles,.... He concludes that their completion marked the sunset of the organizations that they were intended to house.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's about more than excessive spending: "The new building telegraphed to our employees, “We’ve arrived. We’re no longer a small struggling startup. You can stop working like a startup and start working like a big company." We started to believe that the new building was a reflection of the company’s (and our own) success. We took our eye off the business. We thought that since we in such a fine building, we were gen…
This is absurd: "Now every engineer can have their own office." NOT INEVITABLE--EXCESSIVE SPENDING "The new building needs to reflect that we’re a successful and established company. Lets “do it right” and have a lobby and reception area that projects a professional image." NOT INEVITABLE AND IMPLIES EXCESSIVE SPENDING "Lets get comfortable chairs and great new desks for everyone. None of this used stuff." NOT INEVIT…
Look at fogcreek software, they managed to move to AWESOME offices and they are still a lean company hiring great engineers who make great products.
So is it a case of "damned if you do, damned if you don't"? How do startups expand when they really have outgrown that little hole in the wall without losing the startup culture that allowed the initial success? Is the curse of the new building unavoidable?
> While our competitors furiously worked on regaining market share, we were arguing about whether the carpets should be wool or nylon. The result was not pretty.
Growth is not the killer. They moved to a nice building, failure of the business was a correlation. A mishandling of priorities was what hurt the worst.
The cultural aspect is more about attitude than space. They outgrew the attitude and paid for it. The building and the excesses it entailed were evidence of the shift in attitude, not the other way around.
This is one of Parkinson’s Laws: "perfection of planned layout is only achieved by institutions on the point of collapse." In the chapter "Plans and Plants" of "Parkinson's Law" (see http://www.amazon.com/Parkinsons-Law-Cyril-Northcote-Parkins... ) he makes the point that "During a period of exciting discovery or progress there is no time to plan the perfect headquarters. The time for that comes later, when all the i…
This is one of Parkinson’s Laws: "perfection of planned layout is only achieved by institutions on the point of collapse." In the chapter "Plans and Plants" of "Parkinson's Law" (see http://www.amazon.com/Parkinsons-Law-Cyril-Northcote-Parkins... ) he makes the point that "During a period of exciting discovery or progress there is no time to plan the perfect headquarters. The time for that comes later, when all the i…
Absolute rubbish. I can give you just as many anecdotes to the contrary, viz.: Microsoft, Apple, Oracle, all of whom had reasonably perfect offices two decades ago.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is absurd: "Now every engineer can have their own office." NOT INEVITABLE--EXCESSIVE SPENDING "The new building needs to reflect that we’re a successful and established company. Lets “do it right” and have a lobby and reception area that projects a professional image." NOT INEVITABLE AND IMPLIES EXCESSIVE SPENDING "Lets get comfortable chairs and great new desks for everyone. None of this used stuff." NOT INEVIT…
Why shouldn't the engineers have new Aeron chairs? Software Engineers spend most of their careers sat down, so you should buy them the best damn chair you can afford, something that supports their bodies and is very comfortable. Look at fogcreek software, they managed to move to AWESOME offices and they are still a lean company hiring great engineers who make great products.
I'd also like to say that this also happens with churches. Every church I've enjoyed didn't own their own building. Rather, they just rented space from the local high school, etc. These groups were extremely focused on building tight-knit communities, and were pretty free to adapt to changing circumstances. Conversely, I can think of a few churches with buildings, where the primary focus of the staff was maintaining…
The churches that rent are usually newer and growing. The much loved idea that a startup is a better place than a well established organization works for churches too. I also heard that (IIRC) a church just about doubles in size when it gets a building. I don't know what analogue that has in the business world.
(Protip: Rent from a Catholic highschool, even if it's a Protestant church. Lower prices, smarter people.)
This is one of Parkinson’s Laws: "perfection of planned layout is only achieved by institutions on the point of collapse." In the chapter "Plans and Plants" of "Parkinson's Law" (see http://www.amazon.com/Parkinsons-Law-Cyril-Northcote-Parkins... ) he makes the point that "During a period of exciting discovery or progress there is no time to plan the perfect headquarters. The time for that comes later, when all the i…
Absolute rubbish. I can give you just as many anecdotes to the contrary, viz.: Microsoft, Apple, Oracle, all of whom had reasonably perfect offices two decades ago.
One imagines that there were counterexamples even in his day, though. Can anyone think of some companies that were rising stars in 1958? Did they have nice offices?