If you're running a SaaS that isn't customer-interaction heavy, you can usually get away with dropping about 80% of your technical staff (if, of course, you pick the correct 20%, which is not easy).
Having worked in several startups through the early growth stage, it's just surprising how much you don't get more done with, say, a 500 employee company than a 50 employee company.
There is a ton of room to grow less and maintain more, and it's a real struggle for a business to decide its product is done with major growth and the associated need for a large staff.
Staffing your business (or even team) with the right number of people to accomplish a job is a real challenge that the majority of managers don't engage with, instead simply trying to grow their little kingdom to the largest size they can, both for intrinsic power reasons, and also to foster greater jobs for themselves later on.
If I see a manager put "led a team of 40" on their resume, in the interview, I ask "did you need 40 people? Did you need more, did you need less, and how would you have found out?" and the number of times this completely catches them off guard is staggering. It's like... did you choose that number for a reason? Or was that just the most you could fit in your budget?
And sure many hands make light work, but there's an inflection point where the sheer weight of your organization becomes a liability, where getting anything done or changed requires the involvement of so many people that most just don't bother unless it's an emergency. That's how you get corporate rot, and that's how you get all the massive companies we rag on here about all the time who have been making like, 5 products since before most of us were born that everyone fucking hates but everyone uses because everyone else does.
I'd like to emphasize further the but. The speed of tasks scales with the inverse log of the organization size.
In other words, as you get bigger, every project gets slower, regardless of how many people you have working on it. A project that would take a week in a tiny organization might take a month in a medium organzation and 2 quarters in a large organization. Sometimes there are good reasons for this, sometimes not.
In a large orginaization, launching a new feature requires interaction with lot of other existing teams which slows speed down. Auth, permissions, metrics, etc. The new feature must seamlessly interact and integrate with existing systems.
Yeah but usually these people are top candidates and occupy the other engineering manager positions, and you, managing a super productive team of 5 or 10 instead, don't even get into a single interview there. And that applies to every single company I have applied to.
Having worked in several startups through the early growth stage, it's just surprising how much you don't get more done with, say, a 500 employee company than a 50 employee company.
There is a ton of room to grow less and maintain more, and it's a real struggle for a business to decide its product is done with major growth and the associated need for a large staff.