But it doesn’t exist. For any task the number of contact points is almost always fairly small. Just because the possible N might be large most are occluded by lack of relevance to any specific task.
I would note that the author categorically says it’s not possible for a startup like environment to exist in a large company. That’s what I disagree with.
How have you developed a sense for organizational friction? What observations of culture can I use to make an educated guess about how easy it is to do my work?
I agree with your point that a large org does not guarantee what the author claims. The author claims that the organizational friction can be measured by productivity, but you recognize culture as the better diagnostic criterion. The big O metaphor does not extend well to the argument, as you point out.
I'm looking for hard hitting interview questions so I don't waste my time on "soul sucking" positions.
That’s the trick isn’t it? As “the boss” I’ve been able to self create my culture around me so it’s been easier. I have landed in management teams that were so oppressive I couldn’t even then. I’ve watched my peer leaders for signs. It’s very hard in an interview to know where you’re landing.
A few things I’ve noticed that might help:
* ask people in the team what they do and how they work, and how the team helps them work best. If they answer “oh I’m a programmer 2” and have wishy washy answers on the rest, that’s a bad sign. They’re being managed by a “by the book” manager. If they describe some complex role that isn’t out of the HR leveling guide, and a unique way of working that’s accommodated by the team, that’s a good sign. If you hear everyone in the team describing a role that’s unique and tailored to them, then that’s a great sign.
* this is controversial but I think any org that slavishly follows modern day agile / scrum can not be dynamic. Nothing more to say other than back in the 90’s Bay Area hanging with thought works and those folks, agile was something very different than today.
* the manager themselves should be very open to questions with thoughtful answers that aren’t rote. They should likewise spend more time understanding you than usual. They should be assessing your fit in their team - do you fill a gap? Do your weaknesses complement others strengths? Are you looking to turn the crank or are you looking to innovate?
Also, be aware of yourself. Not everyone does well in a dynamic environment. It’s more chaotic and less structured. If you like clearly defined and regimented work, go for the clearly defined and regimented team.
Organizations are structured as trees as a strategy to combat N^2 complexity. You talk up, or down. The tradeoff is of course N^2 relationships still exist in reality , so you duplicate effort, and sometimes collide, but it's a good tradeoff.
I think it’s more like an adhoc graph that’s more dependent on the task than the organization. Tree based management is only useful for reporting and dictates. The actual work is more like “I need to get X done, I need to work with I,j,k to do it.” Often the real issue is NOT that it’s N^2 interactions, but the space for identifying who I,j,k actually are is quadratic and there’s no index. This is often the immense value of “lore masters” in a team - they have an unnatural ability to know who to talk to about what. If you don’t have one in your team, get one.
I think you’re being unnecessarily harsh and reductionist of the article’s arguments. I’ve experienced exactly this failure mode in startups.
The counter-example you described is an example of properly managing the N^2 complexity, not an example of it not existing.