🐈

Microsoft is similar except because of its age it's more tempered and professional. Google attracts more young competitive types looking to prove themselves.

Facebook attracts an even hungrier crowd but is more flat. (At Google you can see look up everyone's level so there's a hidden game of everyone sizing each other up) The cost is without crystalizing some form of meritocracy social power becomes dominant.

Facebook's issue is that of schizophrenic identity. The same conflicts it enables in some real world groups is also recursively enabled within it. Social power is constantly in flux and a terrible platform for stability.

Netflix is also flat, though in a different way. Everyone is a highly paid senior engineer. No junior, senior, staff, senior staff, principal, distinguished, etc... It removes the hungry ambition at the line level though not at the executive level.

I suspect at that level the games are more intense. Similar to how wars between generals with larger armies shed more blood.

At FB energy comes from being Cool, a socially derived energy. At Apple, that energy comes from being Elite but is reliant on the ability of that Elite to set Cool, e.g. lead the crowd.

Google's energy comes from being Brilliant, but because this isn't rooted into anything (Even the snobbish elites can be taken down by enough crowd backlash) its tendency is to become self-absorbed with self-sustainment.

It's the Brilliant Genius not caring what everyone else thinks and giving up a lot of social power for secular power. And then being amazingly hamfisted in social situations, driven by the subconscious resentment of always being the Nice Guy.