This is a very interesting post. I am intrigued by point 11, but it's written so abstractly that I'm not quite sure I understand what he(?)'s saying. What are the groups he's talking about? Functional groups (of employees, like 'marketing')? If that's correct, who are the stakeholders within that group? Perhaps he meant 'leader' of these groups, or 'strong personalities.'
Or is he talking about people who have an interest in the product (the usual use of the term 'stakeholders'). In which case, what is this variable compensation he's talking about?
I wonder how big a company has to be before this paragraph is something that actually has to be managed. Goal alignment has to be continual throughout the company's lifetime, of course, but at what point do you have to start identifying 'thought leaders' within groups and have to take special care that the group's own personality has goals aligned with the company?
I'd love to hear someone with this experience, of having stuck with a startup through some period where the mixture of talent has 'condensed' into separate functional groups, enlighten this paragraph a bit.
Or is he talking about people who have an interest in the product (the usual use of the term 'stakeholders'). In which case, what is this variable compensation he's talking about?
I wonder how big a company has to be before this paragraph is something that actually has to be managed. Goal alignment has to be continual throughout the company's lifetime, of course, but at what point do you have to start identifying 'thought leaders' within groups and have to take special care that the group's own personality has goals aligned with the company?
I'd love to hear someone with this experience, of having stuck with a startup through some period where the mixture of talent has 'condensed' into separate functional groups, enlighten this paragraph a bit.