The skills and talents needed to lead and influence a big organization are different from those needed to influence a small team. Once the team size surpasses Dunbar's number, a phase shift is required into a qualitatively different way of leading, in order to be effective.
A few years ago I took a new role in my org, a team in a big tech company, where I was expected to influence the technical direction the key infrastructure that supports our mission. I had no direct authority to tell anyone what to do, except the small team that reported to me. But I had the endorsement of the bosses and a reputation as a respected technical voice from years as a senior IC before moving to management. No problem, I thought. We're small, and I know everyone and they know me. Those things had always been enough.
During that time, though, the team headcount grew fourfold, we had been less than a hundred people and now we're three hundred or more. We stopped calling ourselves a "team" and started to say "org" or "department". It was impossible to have personal relationships with everyone, and the ways I used to influence change stopped working. I became ineffective. I could influence individuals, but without defined processes and management systems that cemented my authority I couldn't influence the org efficiently anymore. I could see things going in bad directions, and I could get meetings with leaders and give them my opinion and recommendations. The would listen and nod in agreement, but the ship wouldn't turn.
The result for me was many months of near-burnout, the feeling of shouting into the void. What saved me was leaning on project and product management, and stepping back into a role of setting and influencing requirements and priorities, where I still have a voice people listen to. I use my one-on-one relationships to preview my vision for our direction and get feedback and buy-in from the other leaders, but the PMs manage the team-wide communication and execution. After almost a year of this, I think we're starting to be back in a good place where we have a roadmap and know what we're doing, but I also know we'll never be as nimble as we were when we were 50-75 people.
A few years ago I took a new role in my org, a team in a big tech company, where I was expected to influence the technical direction the key infrastructure that supports our mission. I had no direct authority to tell anyone what to do, except the small team that reported to me. But I had the endorsement of the bosses and a reputation as a respected technical voice from years as a senior IC before moving to management. No problem, I thought. We're small, and I know everyone and they know me. Those things had always been enough.
During that time, though, the team headcount grew fourfold, we had been less than a hundred people and now we're three hundred or more. We stopped calling ourselves a "team" and started to say "org" or "department". It was impossible to have personal relationships with everyone, and the ways I used to influence change stopped working. I became ineffective. I could influence individuals, but without defined processes and management systems that cemented my authority I couldn't influence the org efficiently anymore. I could see things going in bad directions, and I could get meetings with leaders and give them my opinion and recommendations. The would listen and nod in agreement, but the ship wouldn't turn.
The result for me was many months of near-burnout, the feeling of shouting into the void. What saved me was leaning on project and product management, and stepping back into a role of setting and influencing requirements and priorities, where I still have a voice people listen to. I use my one-on-one relationships to preview my vision for our direction and get feedback and buy-in from the other leaders, but the PMs manage the team-wide communication and execution. After almost a year of this, I think we're starting to be back in a good place where we have a roadmap and know what we're doing, but I also know we'll never be as nimble as we were when we were 50-75 people.