I had an interesting discussion today with an old friend who’s currently in an MBA program. We were chatting about our relative experiences, and how I had been frustrated that in my previous position as a programmer I had felt held back due to the lack of meritocracy. In retrospect, I have a greater appreciation of the company’s position — there’s obviously politics involved that push back; people who have been waiting in line, the practice of gradual (percentage based on your current salary) increase in salary, and other unfortunate but understandable forces. I then commented “interestingly, EA is a meritocracy”. His response was surprising to me:

“That’s not surprising. In my experience with large institutions, they have the ability to create the structure needed to foster meritocracy. A small company, however, is more ad hoc.”

I had always believed that large organizations were more prone to “waiting you turn” due to the inevitable hierarchy and increased politics. It had never occured to me that the resources would allow you to be better at creating an environment that championed achievement — I took it for granted that they would have to use the resources to try and simulate a smaller studio.

On a side note, I’ve been reading The Age of Turbulence by Alan Greenspan. It’s not light reading, but I would recommend it to anyone looking to gain insight into how the US economy works. It’s certainly prompted me to reconsider how I approach certain aspects of business.