Small teams should avoid Large Companies Processes

When you're a small company, the temptation to mimic the processes of large, successful corporations can be strong. The illusion is that these workflows are inherently superior, a secret ingredient to their success. However, the reality is far more nuanced: large companies often adopt complex workflows not because they're the "best," but because they have no other choice.

Imagine coordinating a massive project across dozens, or even hundreds, of different teams with a targeted release date. Without a rigid process, chaos would ensue. These elaborate systems—think endless meetings, detailed documentation, and layers of approval—are designed to minimize collisions, manage dependencies, and ensure a semblance of order when direct, informal communication is no longer feasible. They are a necessary evil for scale, not a blueprint for efficiency.

This is where small teams have a distinct advantage. You possess the luxury of small scale. Communication can be direct, fluid, and immediate. You're not a mere cog in a colossal machine; each team member can meaningfully and visibly affect change. In a team of four, the idea of daily stand-ups, sprint planning, and all the various Scrum ceremonies might sound like a professional way to operate. However, this adherence to large-scale processes can actively hinder your performance.

Consider the purpose of these ceremonies. Daily stand-ups, for example, are largely designed to provide quick updates on individual progress when a manager can't possibly check in with everyone directly. In a small team, this is often redundant. You can, as you rightly point out, have a productive, in-depth conversation with each engineer in an hour or less and still have ample time for actual work. These processes, while beneficial for massive organizations struggling with information flow, become overhead for nimble teams. They consume valuable time and energy that could be spent on innovation, problem-solving, and direct collaboration.

Here's another crucial difference: for a small team, the cost of starting a project over is close to free. If an idea isn't working, you can quickly pivot, scrap it, and try something new with minimal impact. But when you have hundreds of people involved, it's like trying to wind down a power plant. You don't just press an "off" button to shut it down; shutting down, itself, becomes an involved process. This massive inertia means large companies are incentivized to get things "right" the first time through extensive planning and process, even if it means moving slower. Small teams have the agility to iterate and fail fast without incurring catastrophic costs.

Process as a consequence of growth, not a prerequisite

In the past, I worked in teams so large they felt like separate companies. They built a charge code system for requesting time from other teams as direct consequence of scale. When you needed to consult with another team, you had to provide that charge code, that dips in your teams fixed budget. It was a terrible process" but a necessary one to enforce structure and prevent resource drain across 150-member departments. Process is something that emerges as you grow, not something you need to impose from day one.

When you're small, your greatest asset is agility. You can adapt quickly, pivot on a dime, and iterate rapidly. Excessive process stifles this inherent flexibility. It introduces bureaucracy, slows down decision-making, and creates unnecessary friction. Instead of adopting the heavy, restrictive frameworks of large enterprises, small teams should embrace a more ad-hoc, organic approach. Focus on clear communication, shared understanding, and direct collaboration. Let your processes evolve naturally as your team and challenges grow, rather than forcing a square peg into a round hole.

---

While it's tempting to emulate the giants, remember that their systems are built for their unique challenges of scale and immense inertia. Small teams have a different set of superpowers: agility, direct communication, and individual impact. Don't sacrifice these strengths by burdening yourselves with workflows designed for a problem you don't have.

---