There is no cohesion or elegance at those kinds of head counts. There are just too many cooks, too many different perspectives, most toolchains allow you to solve problems in too many different ways.
IMO and contrary to what people say, making good software is not a team sport.
You could try to offset that by some combination of keeping head count low, optimizing for technical homogeneity when hiring and/or using intentionally spartan toolchains (Golang for example) but the odds are still against you.
Also, US business culture is maximalist and land-grabby in nature so no one is going to let you actually apply any of those constraints. The people who write checks don't actually care if the software is "good" because in almost all cases it doesn't have to be.
IMO and contrary to what people say, making good software is not a team sport.
You could try to offset that by some combination of keeping head count low, optimizing for technical homogeneity when hiring and/or using intentionally spartan toolchains (Golang for example) but the odds are still against you.
Also, US business culture is maximalist and land-grabby in nature so no one is going to let you actually apply any of those constraints. The people who write checks don't actually care if the software is "good" because in almost all cases it doesn't have to be.