The wiki page about lunch discussions, etc. was brilliant. That is the kind of cool, outside-of-the-box thinking that gets your noticed in a large group of people. That people wanted to be 'featured' validates the idea nicely, too.
Can we ditch the 'hustle', though? Some things, like asking the CEO to lunch, seem like 'hustle' because they're obvious but 'hard'. This wiki page was a very clever idea more than it was hard work, I think it kind of demonstrates how the term has grown out of control.
As for the 'large' company, I think his definition is valid. Where I am now we're approaching 200 employees, and it's well beyond the point where everyone knows each other (there is a term for this limit). Even for 400 people, the traditional 'meet at the watercooler' methods break down, and you need to inject some innovation to meet everyone.
> As for the 'large' company, I think his definition is valid. Where I am now we're approaching 200 employees, and it's well beyond the point where everyone knows each other (there is a term for this limit). Even for 400 people, the traditional 'meet at the watercooler' methods break down, and you need to inject some innovation to meet everyone.
Personally, I like to use Dunbar's number as a the divide between small and large companies.
Can we ditch the 'hustle', though? Some things, like asking the CEO to lunch, seem like 'hustle' because they're obvious but 'hard'. This wiki page was a very clever idea more than it was hard work, I think it kind of demonstrates how the term has grown out of control.
As for the 'large' company, I think his definition is valid. Where I am now we're approaching 200 employees, and it's well beyond the point where everyone knows each other (there is a term for this limit). Even for 400 people, the traditional 'meet at the watercooler' methods break down, and you need to inject some innovation to meet everyone.