Small and mighty

12/29/2022 📘 10 min read

On this page...

Some use the term “small but mighty,” the but suggesting being both small and mighty is unusual. I appreciate the contrast in this stereotype and there are places where the stereotype holds true, but when it comes to professional practice, “small and mighty” should be the default modus operandi.

The idiom too much of a good thing succinctly expresses a widely accepted truth that more does not always equal better.

This sentiment applies universally to almost every situation in life. And yet, the draw to believe more and more will make better and better is so alluring no one can truly escape it 100% of the time. Who hasn’t fallen into the trap of thinking an endless supply of “xyz” will result in endless good times? It’s so prolific that countless artistic expressions across mediums continue to debate its meaning and validity. Just look at how many genres there are in this list of songs strictly titled after the idiom!

• “Too Much of a Good Thing” - LEISURE (Soul)
• “Too Much of a Good Thing” - Madeline Edwards (Christian)
• “Too Much of a Good Thing” - Alan Jackson (Country)
• “Too Much of a Good Thing” - Bon Jovi (Rock)
• “Too Much of a Good Thing” - Pell [Explicit] (Hip-hop)
• “Too Much of a Good Thing” - Kylie Minogue (Pop)
• “Too Much of a Good Thing” - Andrew Neu (Big Band!)
• “Too Much of a Good Thing” - The Shirelles (R&B)
• “Too Much of a Good Thing” - Sina Doering / Mike Wilbury (Folk)

Clearly, this topic is worth writing about. 😲 But, unlike Alan Jackson, this Alan doesn’t believe too much of a good thing is a good thing… at least not the way it’s practiced in today’s tech industry. Business leaders and boots on the ground represent two sides of the same coin caught in the crisis of more is better. They approach from different angles but share the same underlying drive for more, more, more.

The most common complaint I hear from engineers is that their teams are understaffed. Ok, you feel understaffed, and you might be. But let’s unpack what that really means. Who has done the analysis that suggests adding more people to the mix will produce the best outcome? What other options were considered in that analysis? Is there a true staffing problem at the organization or are people being overworked? (There is a big difference here.) Can timelines be altered? Can scope be adjusted? Is this a problem of skill or experience? Is everything really a P1?

The viral video of 3 Japanese soccer professionals scoring against 100 children (including 10 goalies) illustrates the problem of focusing on team size over talent. Watch how they play into the children’s magnetic draw to the ball to easily move downfield and into the goal.

Maybe this scenario would be different if there were 200 children on the field. But how much inefficiency are companies willing to swallow in lieu of the hard work that makes great players? And do you really want to play on a team where your role is less important than your existence?

As you start to unpack the generalized complaint that “we need more people,” you expose the problems beneath the symptom, which, most of the time, aren’t about the number of people on your team. Scaling up headcount is one strategy to address quantifiable problems that can be addressed in other ways. Headcount is merely a piece of an approach to a solution—it’s certainly not its own problem. Solving problems without hiring new staff is almost always cheaper. So, why do so many turn to this as the solution? Probably because…

Waaaaay back in 2009, I founded a startup with some angel investment and a key customer. The market timing was good, the product was right, and I had connections to the industry. In my mind, the obstacle to success was putting the right team together so all organizational functions could operate… sort of like assembling a sports team.

So I did that, we ran for a year and closed our doors because we didn’t solve the right problems. At the time, everyone felt we needed more—more funding, more people, more time. No, what we needed was less waste and better direction. But, I was too young and inexperienced to identify real problems, so I used the ”phone hire-a-friend” approach. I allocated funds in the wrong places, solved the wrong problems, and consequently went out of business. Meanwhile, there were others in 2009 building successful businesses on less than $5000! For that matter, you could have started a business with $100 if you didn’t put the cart before the horse.

Before I give you the impression there is no place for more in the success equation, there absolutely is! Inevitably, scale and growth will be fundamental elements of a successful financial model. But I can’t overstate how important it is to surgically identify what should be scaled and when rather than starting with scale and thinking that will bring you success. Success isn’t a just add water people formula, you have to do the hard work to discover the right ingredients.

The other side of the coin comes with company leaders urgent to do just one thing—grow. More users, more products, more geographies, more revenue, more offices, more employees, more investors, more money, more money, more money… Is that bad? No, not necessarily, but let’s take a step back and ask what this focus is all about. Where is all this growth headed? What is the end game? How is it serving the company and at what point does it tip from being “enjoyable [and] beneficial” to “bothersome [and] harmful”?

Business is about two things: mission and money. Without money, business can’t execute its mission. But without mission, money becomes the mission and business tends to treat people like robots whose purpose is to accelerate the money machine. Not only does this take a bite out of humanity, at this stage there is no real end game.

How does this paradigm perpetuate so easily? I won’t pretend to have all the answers but let me suggest it’s about who stands to profit. The distinguishing factor of these growth-hungry companies is outside ownership—or more precisely, ownership by people who care more about the money than the mission. Those responsible for guiding and directing the organization in this model are heavily incentivized to grow the financials, so heavily that decisions putting mission above money require cultural resistance and conscious discipline. But why resist in the first place? As a leader in this model, your purpose is to generate wealth, doing anything less makes you a bad employee.

I love money, money is infinitely useful. But I have a personal problem with growth models that tip the scale of money over mission because it suffers from the same mental laziness that “hiring more people will solve our problems” suffers from. Money is not the answer, it’s an answer, and honestly, money is more likely part of an answer. Take a step back again—what problems do you think you are solving with money? What alternative solutions did you consider before you turned to money as the answer?

Organizations that prioritize money over mission tend to treat people like cogs in a machine. Only, people aren’t cogs and organizations aren’t machines… people are people and organizations are groups of people. For the sake of humanity, mission first, money second. Another way you can think of this is to consider money a product requirement and mission a product. Your focus will always be on improving the mission and money will support that effort.

A more helpful question is: what quantifiable problems do you have and what creative solutions have you explored? The answer to those questions will tell you whether more or less is better.

However…

Since I already said “small and mighty” should be the default approach, let me resolve what may look like a contradiction. “Less” isn’t always better but should be the first step in all your decision-making. What can you accomplish with less? How far can you go with less money, less time, fewer people, etc.? If your mental model begins with this goal, you develop a pattern of safety and stability in everything you do. You won’t overextend yourself yet at the same time you’ll accomplish more than most because the easier route of doing less by asking for more will always be more crowded!

Everything in the small and mighty paradigm starts with individuals. You begin by being small and mighty yourself, then you help your team, your organization, and your industry. Below are some examples of what small and mighty looks like in each degree.

Small and mighty individuals are resourceful problem solvers. They are critical thinkers that follow the work more than the job title. A small and mighty individual will often wear multiple hats and not only assist in the work of others but help others assist each other. At the same time, small and mighty individuals are good at saying no and creating boundaries. One of the biggest pitfalls of “cogs in a machine” is that employees communicate with each other through protocols and apis rather than simple discussions about practical realities. This often causes many employees to waste time on matters that aren’t useful. A small and mighty individual seeks out context and limits efforts to the most valuable work.

Small and mighty teams are comprised of small and mighty individuals with the added bonus of a deeper shared understanding of each other’s work. Not only do they possess and align to a shared vision, they work closely enough to know when something will help or hurt a team member, and they continuously adjust so the team’s output is most effective. Small and mighty teams are viewed as a unit and can often present team members interchangeably when working with others, allowing for better team coverage and continuity. Small and mighty teams own significant projects and produce material value for the organization.

Small and mighty organizations are profitable and live within their means. They produce offerings that are as good or better than market competitors, regardless of the backing size or budget. These organizations are built of small and mighty teams and have a culture of problem-solving and value creation. Small and mighty organizations treat their people well, imbuing balance, discipline, reward, effective communication, and experimentation. Small and mighty organizations enjoy self-governance and freedom from outside agendas. They offer meaningful contributions to society.

Small and mighty industries (or markets) create affordable disruption in unbalanced and problematic spaces. They find problems in the world, evangelize, and connect organizations to new causes. Small and mighty industries evolve society and increase the well-being of humanity. They are mission-focused and fueled by a deep sense of purpose.

There is enough big and mighty in the world and its inefficient waste cuts against the celebration and encouragement of what makes us human. We can do better. The world needs more small and mighty. Come join the ranks, we need you.