Economies and diseconomies of scale in management.
0 Employees.
With no one to manage, there is no one with whom to communicate. You will never be more efficient.
1/n
1 employee.
You now must communicate what, how, and why to the employee you manage. Efficiency falls from this communication. However, accountability is high because everything that happens in the department can be attributed to the one person.
2/n
2 employees.
Huge dropoff in efficiency, because, not only do the two employees need to communicate between themselves and you, but you need to know who is responsible for what. You must observe closely to reward fairly or no one will work hard.
3/n
8 employees.
Efficiency continues to fall as you add more people. Efficiency jumps back up when you have enough scale to hire a manager that you now directly manage, but now you have 3 layers of management and managers are farther from the actual work, reducing efficiency.
4/n
16 employees.
Andy Grove said a manager can competently manage up to 7 people (7*2 + 2 = 16). You now have enough people to justify hiring a second manager, but you now have the same problems you had when you had 2 employees. Which manager is responsible for the outcome?
5/n
I probably should have drawn the last dot lower than 2 employees, but you get the idea.
It's really interesting how efficiency bounces up and down when you hit various points of scale!
Thoughts, comments, questions, criticism?
6/6
Bonus tweet: I fucked up.
This is probably how the graph should have looked...
🤦♂️
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
My allegedly "pro-china" video got shadowbanned on the allgedly "pro-china" app lol
Even though I submitted an appeal and it got approved that video is now dead.
I posted on Twitter, LinkedIn, and Tiktok...how did each do?
On Twitter, 33k followers got me to 2.9 million views.
On TikTok, 550 followers got me to 224k views
On LinkedIn, 1900 followers got me 3056 impressions
TikTok definitely seems like the place to post content that you want to go viral, if you don't have many followers.
1. What I said about Amazon 2. How Amazon's lawyers have retaliated 3. Why it matters to Amazon customers, sellers, stockholders, and even Amazon itself twitter.com/i/web/status/1…
Four years ago, I wrote an article.
It had a simple message:
1. Amazon doesn't allow sellers to price their products for less off-Amazon.
2. If they do, Amazon hides their products.
3. This keeps prices off-Amazon high, which is bad for consumers.
3. We paid a ton of money to build this warehouse and pour this concrete and we let that guy stay but he is actually blocking other trucks from docking. How would you like it if I parked a truck in front of your driveway?
4. Is it cool to ask a question? Because that was all that I was doing. Do you need to write 1 star reviews on my business’ google maps location because I asked a question? Call me an asshole?
5. So many people pretending like they’d just let all the trucks stay in their lots
Last time I tweeted something like this I was wrongfully suspended from Twitter but I think the following is smart.
In the 1800s surgeons did surgeries without washing their hands, going from patient to patient, sharing disease.
That is until this guy:
Believe or not, a lot of people were resistant to washing their hands.
So what’s my point?
Based on my reading of studies and some common sense, I bet we could greatly reduce disease transmission by encouraging people to gargle and nasal spray after likely disease exposures.
A lot of airborne and saliva globule illnesses hang out in your nose, sinuses, and throat.
Next time you go to a packed bar with poor ventilation, when you get home, you could gargle and nasal spray to, if not prevent disease, mitigate it.