The bigger an organization gets, the more valuable “average” is.
A 10,000-person company doesn’t need more break-throughs, they need less break-downs.
The smaller an organization is/gets/stays, the more valuable deviations from the broader averages (re: standards) can be.
If the big companies all do it one way, the smaller companies have to do it differently.
In a way that maybe doesn’t scale.
In a way that maybe isn’t for such a large audience.
In a way that’s maybe only valuable to a small group of people who realize, “THIS is what I really needed.”
Smaller companies have to do it differently if they want to create a differentiated value.
Bigger companies have to do it the same if they want to reduce any perceived loss of value.
If you’re part of a huge company, you win by reducing the mistakes and delivering a consistent (and by definition, kind of a boringly standard) result. It’s not inherently bad, it’s the math of how you stay big. You keep the trains running, on time, and for profit.
If you’re part of a tiny company, you win by maximizing your differentials from the boring consistencies of the bigger alternatives in your industry. It’s not inherently good, but it’s the math of how you stay competitive in the areas you can actually compete. You drive the taxi to and from the train station, one passenger at a time, with a clean car and a positive attitude.