On rejuvenating a company

As has been noted before, my recent interest revolves around aspects of evolution, especially that of industries and companies. Again, the age-old question of why companies die and how that can be avoided remains something of a key question.

Interestingly enough a few months back I was listening to Aubrey de Grey talk about aging and the provocative thought of near-eternal life. The argument supposedly goes metabolism causes unwanted side-effects (or damage) in our bodies over time. Eventually due to the accumulation of damage we end up dying, which on an individual level can be a rather unpleasant experience, depending on circumstances. Anyway, the idea is that by repairing the damage periodically we can rejuvenate the body and in a way turn back the clock. Advances in technology paired with iterative rejuvenation should then result in a situation where we would supposedly escape death indefinitely.

Regardless of whether or not we believe de Grey, I see an interesting analogy between this and what is killing off companies. If we start from a small start up, typically things are very ad hoc and agile, unorganized and clear. With a small amount of people making up the company, things just work. Of course this structure is very fragile and susceptible to all types of problems due to the lack of experience, much like children. The company can stray from its path and end up killed by being run over by competition. But such is life.

Over time the companies that aren't killed get smarter and smarter. They learn how to survive, how to satisfy customers, and so on. The growth is thus happening and typically in order to get the revenue to grow, companies need to scale up and thus recruit new employees. Over time the company must put on some excess weight, or overhead, in the form of administrative roles and structures (e.g. reporting structures, organizational structures, etc.). The structures typically appear to solve some problem. Reporting structures attempt to solve the problem of communication, which arises when enough people work in an organization and it is no longer feasible or possible to have everyone talking to everyone. So, structures in a way should be subordinate to problems.

With size and wealth comes relative stability. A single failure might no longer cause death and the company also learns to view and evaluate the world (or the industry it operates in, which is pretty much the same thing in this case) from the perspective of survival: the organization has learned from past mistakes. Enter path dependence and the increasingly heavy bag of history. Culture and status quo forms and the company keeps growing. Implicit knowledge is taught to new employees and the culture grows. People start doing things in a certain way since that's how it has always been done. The structures solidify and become axiomatic.

Unlike humans who grow and function in a more or less unchanged environment (where the change is so slow that it does not matter from the perspective of an individual human), companies operate in a much more unstable environment. Thus as the market demand changes, the companies must evolve to address new situations. Humans very often don't need to do this: the sun rises tomorrow, much like it did today. But the company must change, it must act differently at different parts of an industry's life cycle. The structures which served one purpose need to be changed to accommodate the changing environment. But as the structures become more and more rigid, change becomes more difficult. Inertia creeps in and damage begins to build up. Eventually if the company isn't able to reinvent or rejuvenate itself, it dies.

I'll admit that the analogy isn't perfect, but the parallels are surprisingly much aligned. Now, what is the practical implication? The older the company, the fatter the organization, the more unable it is to change and eventually it will get killed off, either by its own inability to function or alternatively it will get eaten up by the new breed of predators. Some people have argued that action comes from structure, and if we accept this, then its clear that to get different action the structure must change. So thus, to put it very bluntly, the rejuvenation of the company means the breaking of existing structures to build room for new structures.

First impressions

I recently had a learning experience interviewing people for a job. It was my first experience with something like that and what a learning experience it was to sit on the other side of the table and look at the situation from a completely different perspective. I thought that I would try to summarize some key things to keep in mind if and when I'm on the "regular" side of the table again in the future...

1) First impression matters. Exclamation mark. Seriously, it's a cliche, but I would say that judging by my experience it held very much true. The impression that I got from the first few minutes would typically hold true for the entire course of the interview. So try to get that right.

2) Be prepared and have your papers in order. Due to various reasons I didn't have the possibility to get very much acquainted with the CVs in advance, so it would be beneficial to bring a complete set of all relevant documents to the interview. If you intend to show something, be prepared in advance; asking the interviewer to lend you a laptop for showing something from online is somewhat awkward.

3) Answer the questions. It was quite surprising to me to run across some cases where people wouldn't answer the question they were asked. They would instead circle around the question. If you don't know the answer, the next best thing from my view would be to admit it. If you may have some clue, you could open up your thinking by explaining out loud, but in this case it should be clear where you're going with your answer. As a spin off of this, know what you know and more importantly know what you don't know. Trying to bluff the interviewer is hazardous: it is very much possible that the interviewer will know more than you and if you get caught bluffing, that is not good.

4) Open questions are a lot more fun for the interviewer. If, however, the interviewer starts asking simple and direct, closed questions, this may potentially be a bad sign. In my case once I didn't get satisfactory answers for open questions and I needed to just see if the interviewee knew anything of the subject, I would narrow my questions and form them more like exam questions and ditch the discussion or dialogue approach.

5) Be active. If the interviewer needs to drag out all the bits and details from you, it reflects somewhat badly on the perception that people are getting from you: are you really the go-getter type of person? Ask questions, show interest.

I guess there were also other things I noticed, but these were some of the top things that came to my mind. Now that I've written them down on paper, most of them seem like common sense. And I guess they are precisely that.