Size Kills Innovation

While returning from home this time round, I took a detour through Hyderabad. Though it was unscheduled, I was quite happy to spend some time with Madhumita and her family. Its always a treat, to hang out with them.

As always, GV (that's Madhumita's father) and I got into a discussion. And this time round, it was about his move from a smaller pharma company, to a much larger one. He is the head of marketing there, and made the career move, recently. While we were talking about the pros and cons of working at a bigger place, I asked him about his views on "Innovation", wrt the size of a company.

I have always had this belief, that true innovation occurs, only under adverse situations. I mean, why would I bother to rack up my precious brain cells, if I could just use the available resources to follow the crowd? I don't think Apple would have targeted the "Common Man", if they had the time, money and expertise that IBM had, to go after the corporates. I doubt if Google would even exist today, if Yahoo had not rejected their offer to being bought off.

Or look closer home, if you will. Fevicol adverts are higher in the Innovation Quotient, than Pepsi's, though the latter has a much more recognizable "Star Power". Bajaj would have forever remained as the Scooter Company, if the penetration of 100cc bikes hadn't eaten into its market. Adversity always forces people to innovate, or get swallowed into the vast void of "Has Been's".

And I am assuming, that from a layman's perspective, a smaller company will have to face a lot more adversity, in terms of resources. And if it still manages to survive, then they are bound to have a lot more innovation happening there, than at a bigger company. Wait. Am not the only one saying this. Paul Graham speaks on these lines in his essay "Hiring Is Obsolete", "Disruptive technologies are developed by disruptive people. And they either don't work for the big company, or have been outmaneuvered by yes-men and have comparatively little influence"

But GV too had a point. Giving me a specific example, he thinks that from a marketing perspective, a bigger company is a better place for innovation, because he has access to a larger resource base, to implement his ideas. Working on a very limited budget, he could not often do a lot of things that he would have wanted to. With more people and more money, he can even afford to make a few mistakes, while pursuing his creative ideas.

Now, I won't refute GV's argument, but isn't THAT the whole point? Accepted, at a small outfit, you don't have much room to make mistakes. But only when the stakes are high, you are left with no other option, but to claw on forward through the skin of your teeth! All the more reason, to try and think "different". Do the whole "Out Of The Box" jig. Will I really take the trouble to put myself through sleepless nights, bear the brunt of being cursed by my team mates, risk the ire of my boss (read : the person who decides my pay package), and more, if I am not pushed to a corner? I don't think so. I don't think so at all.

I know am putting my neck, way out of line on this, but I stand by my thoughts. Even if size doesn't completely kill innovation, it cripples it to such an extent that it loses its meaning. Ofcourse there are times when you don't have an option but to ramp up on size. But in that case, just don't expect earth shattering, universe denting stuff.

To conclude, a couple of lines from Ayn Rand's Anthem, "The spirit of man will remain alive on this earth. It may sleep, but it will awaken. It may wear chains, but it will break through. And man will go on. Man, Not Men".