r2i forum

In career, people always say that it is better to surround yourself with people whose intelligence,talent,ability,wisdom,and/or accomplishments are greater than yours because you will benefit much more and learn much more and much faster.

One of the innovators in recent decades, Marc Andreessen of Mosaic/Netscape browser fame says "Never worry about being a small fish in a big pond. Being a big fish in a small pond sucks—you will hit the ceiling on what you can achieve quickly, and nobody will care. Optimize at all times for being in the most dynamic and exciting pond you can find. That is where the great opportunities can be found"

But how practical it is ?

Aren't people more happier if they are recognized as stalwarts in a smaller setup than if they are nobody in a bigger setup ?

Not just career.. Even in life. Let us say you are recognized by every person in a small village, you have enough wealth, you are comfortable. Would it make sense for you to move to a city and literally be nobody ?

I thought to post this in career section but I wanted it to be a discussion at the philosophical level, hence posted in this section..

I think the more relevant question is
"Am I someone or no one?"

Better to be some one in as big of a pond as one can accommodate comfortably with minimal stress.

This also plays a lot in R2A/R2I/LIA/LII decisions.

I like both Big fish and small fish, baked or cooked.

Depending on your culinary skill, they will taste great!

Were you asking something else ?

I never worked with any small company, so I don't know how it feels to work in a small company.

For women's careers, until the children are launched out to college, it works best to be in a big pond. There are many intangible advantages -- routine, flex-time, slacks for having to be with child/school etc., and a lot of learning from colleagues. Once the children are launched, all of the lessons learned could be used to move to a small pond, if that is necessary. Or become big fish in the same/similar pond.

RBee;626239
But how practical it is ?
Aren't people more happier if they are recognized as stalwarts in a smaller setup than if they are nobody in a bigger setup ?

My personal view is it's better to be a small fish in big pond. The thing with small pond is you outgrow the pond vey quickly.
Even if you start as a nobody in a bigger setup, you get many opportunities both for learning and proving yourself. At first, you get recognized as a stalwart in a much smaller group in the bigger setup, and then as you grow and keep doing better and better, you now get recognized as a stalwart in a circle that is growing bigger and bigger. And you can aspire to be and even get to be a big fish in a big pond. The thing with a small pond is you don't get that - you max out very quickly and then you stagnate for a long long time.

I have to add that there is no one size fits all - you pick and choose what you value the most. If you are ambitious and want to achieve something big, then you are better off starting as a small fish in a big pond. But if that's not what is important to you, and/or you get satisfied fairly easily or have other constraints, then you may choose to be a big fish in a small pond. Depending on what you value the most in your life at that time, you could go back and forth between the two ponds... Happiness is relative and also varies with time. What makes you happy in your twenties is different from what keeps you happy in your thirties.

------------------

Since you wanted the discussion to be philosophical, there is a completely different philosophy that I want to put out -- of not wanting to be any-sized fish in any-sized pond - 'cos at the end of the day, it doesn't matter how big you are, you still remain a fish. Analogous to not wanting to be in a rat-race - the problem with rat race is it doesn't matter whether you come first or last, you still remain a rat. :)

Doesnt it depend on the fish? I think some fish are tastier when fried vs. baked (dont know, i am a veggie).

I dont think there is a general rule. Have worked in all sorts of set-ups and found that I am the reason of my problems most of the times. But that realisation comes always a little late after having doen the analysis of big vs small team, org, etc:).

I was a micro fish in a very big pond for a while, and I used it later to boast when I was a still smaller fish in big (not very big) pond.

I milk this aspect and now become a big fish in small pond. I like this way. It is worth being a some fish in big pond, and carry this in your resume for life. But I feel it is like blank check. Wasted if not used sometime later as bigger fish in smaller pond. You need recognition also in life , in relative terms, don't we ?

BSing philosophically, I think successful people dont worry about being big/small fish or pond. They are focussed on the task and are sharks at opportunities. All this big/small thing is for people who crave for recognition or public acceptance aka attention-seekers.

I am just happy I am A fish in A pond. Atleast I have a pond (my job) and I get to prove that I can swim(with my engineering skills)!

big fish eats small fish. If that's not an issue/one has surviving techniques then big pond is good. Chances of getting eaten up in big pond are great and at same time there are more hiding places:embeer:
Small pond you are visible all the time irrespective of your size.