[rajvardhanraje]

Choosing our career can be one of the most important decision of our lives. Most of us aspire to land up in a multinational company irrespective of the sector. But without any prior experience, it can be tricky to determine what kind of business best suits our ambitions, leaving us unsure about which opportunities we should pursue. Landing a role in a small business might be better or worse for our career prospects depending on a multitude of factors. There’s no one right answer for which is better. However, there are pros and cons to working for large and small companies to consider. Knowing these pros and cons can help us better target our job search and help make sure we don’t end up at a company where we don’t thrive.

There is no formal definition of small, mid or large companies. I have considered organisations with less than 100 employees as small, those within 1000 as mid and anything higher than that as big. I am an engineer working in the field of control systems based industrial automation. Started my career is a very small organisation and gradually migrated to larger organizations over a span of time. In this thread I will cover the advantages and disadvantages of both sides. My viewpoints might not cover the entire spectrum as I spent a significant portion of my early career working at mid-level organisations. I started working with a large organization only after a decade of experience.

1. Hiring Process

• Process and Time: In a small organization, the process is quite fast. Hardly 1 round of interview and you are done. No such thing as aptitude tests, group discussions. They are less likely to take a chance as they cannot afford to leave a vacancy open for too long. The offer gets released quickly. In a large organization, one needs to go through a series of rounds and discussions. The absence of one person from the workforce is proportionally lower. The total process can span well over a month.
  
  
• Availability: There are fewer positions at small organisations, but jobs are more flexible. They are more likely to overlook weaker areas of your CV if you come with a ready to learn attitude. Large organisations have more positions available. As these roles are highly specialized, you are more likely to find the job that’s right for you rather than a generic role. However, you’re unlikely to be able to apply for more than one role.
  
  
• Competition: Small organisations get fewer CVs, so yours is more likely to get shortlisted. They tend to hire by referrals, so that might work to your advantage or disadvantage based on your network. Being an outsider may put you at a disadvantage. Large organisations tend to opt for placements from well ranked colleges. Naturally they get a big talent pool to choose from. Because they’re well-known, people are likely to approach them eliminating the need for them to search aggressively.
  
  
• Qualifications: Small organisations do not tend to be stringent about your educational qualifications. They are more flexible with people of different educational backgrounds and merit scores. Large organisations tend to have stringent rules about your qualifications, stream of expertise and merit scores. Quite rarely do they deviate from these. Graduates with mediocre scores are less likely to land up here without prior experience.

2. Monetary Aspects

• Salary: This is the part where there is huge disparity. For entry level positions, smaller organisations tend to pay much lower. The only advantage is that you have more negotiation power as they do not tend to have defined salary bands. Large organisations pay much higher is comparison. This gives us a good head start as most jobs later tend to pay us based on our previous salary. The scope for negotiation is negligible though owing to their bands and structure.
  
  
• Perks: Smaller organisations lack in this aspect big time. They lack things like a comprehensive insurance. One factor which differentiates the two are allowances especially when travelling. For instance, at my first job I had to travel by bus from Pune to Chennai, intra-city travel using local transport or undertake those excruciatingly long two-day train journeys to other parts of the nation. Accommodation would always have restrictions on the spending necessitating stays at cheap hotels. Heck they even had limits on food allowances. This is where they get completely blown away by larger organisations. Travel by air, stay at good hotels, local travel by cab and most importantly no one to monitor what and how much you ate.

3. Work Life

• Community: At a small organisation you’ll probably know everyone from the receptionist all the way up to the owner. There is a feeling of being part of a community and develop strong friendships. Travelling really makes a big impact usually in a positive manner. Foundations of the best friendships are laid here. Working together in challenging environments far away, sharing grievances and the late-night alcoholic stress busters. Feels more like a college hostel. In larger organisations, the environment seems far more professional and process centric. Barring a few, most engagements happen only at a professional level. The sense of belonging towards the company is a bit lacking. Honestly speaking, I prefer the latter.
  
  
• Flexibility: Timings or login/logouts are not something that are given much importance to usually in smaller organisations. It’s fine if you work a few hours less sometimes. No restrictions to fill in those nine hours every day. The downside, work hours do not exist sometimes. They can make you work like hell without any benefits to speak of. In large organisations things are much more disciplined. Fill in those work hours, complete your tasks and leave. This is much better for those preferring to adhere to stricter schedules. If one is made to work longer, at least there are some benefits he can avail.
  
  
• Work Environment and Load: Small organisations will often throw you in the deep-end by making you responsible for areas that are significant revenue drivers. That attention puts you at the top of the list for a new position with more responsibility. Since roles aren’t quite as fixed, you may gradually take on more and more things outside of your remit. You must also take on more work if someone is on annual leave because there are fewer people to share the additional load between. In a large organisation, you won’t be responsible for anything significant. However, this means you have very little control, too. They are more efficiently structured, so your workload will often be moderate and manageable. Because it’s highly specialized though, you might find that you work on a lot of similar projects, which can become monotonous. They typically work quite slowly, but in return expect perfection. There’s a lot of compliance and regulation they need to go through. As employees are used to things taking a while, there’s less pressure on you to deliver work quickly.
  
  
• Support Mechanism: At small organisations, you’re often a one-man army. There is no tech support or dedicated department you can approach. Things can be driven much more quickly than you could in a large one but losing that collaboration can impact the quality of the final product, and if something fails, it’s all on you. In a forgiving environment, though, this can lead to incredibly valuable learning experiences. Bigger teams at large organisations mean that you can get a lot of support on projects. However, you’ll also be vulnerable to the diffusion of responsibility that can happen in big groups.

4. Progress

• Pace: Small organisations can sometimes offer quick upwards progression thanks to their preference for internal hires, meaning you could go from an entry-level role to a senior position in the space of a few years. However, there may only be one or two promotions you can achieve before you hit your limit. Large organisations offer plenty of opportunities to be promoted within your chosen discipline. The limitation here is that you may have to wait a while until a new position comes up that’s within your specialism. However, there are often a lot more rungs on the career ladder, meaning you can move vertically for quite a long time before you hit a ceiling. Success has a specific definition, and when you bring up your accomplishments in a performance review, if they’re not on the list, they may not count. Since you work with a lot of people, it means that there is competition everywhere. When a manager is deciding who to promote, they will start with all the people who hit the defined goal for earning that promotion. If that’s not you, you probably won’t get the promotion.
  
  
• Designation: Small organisations usually do not have a defined progression structure. You can end up landing a higher designation in shorter times. It is quite common to see people with hardly 5 years of experience in managerial positions. The downside, this does not get translated to a similar position when you move to a large organisation. Lateral moves do not happen when you switch. Large organisations have a well-defined structure and protocols in place. Your designation depends on your experience and role. Deviations are few and exist for higher roles. Roles are well mapped to their respective designations. The major advantage is that while switching jobs, your existing designation is taken into consideration.
  
  
• Numbers Game: At a small organisation, you are a big fish in a small pond with far lesser people to compete with. At a large organisation, you are a small fish in a big pond and could end up being part of a rat race. In my opinion, the latter makes you more competitive.

5. Self-Development

• Creativity: Small organisations tend to encourage outside the box thinking and are more likely to embrace change and even radical ideas. While this may be due to a lack of resources, being able to apply creative solutions allows you to shine as an employee, and lets you test out theories and find answers quickly. There are no large processes and standards that need to be adhered to thereby reducing the chances of ideas getting rejected. In large organisations, each project needs to go through certain documented and well-defined processes. Out of the box thinking usually does not make the cut. In very rare instances do these ideas make through multiple layers of the technical and business teams. Lighthouse initiatives are usually defined at higher levels which propagate gradually down the pyramid.
  
  
• Resources: Small organisations lack in this area big time. You must be content with the limited resources available. This is one area where the large organisations excel. They tend to have massive test labs with the latest expensive devices that you can lay your hands on. No worries of cost approvals for procuring software/hardware for test purposes. All software is licensed with no usage and trial restrictions. Subscriptions are abundant and you can opt for big ticket trainings with ease.
  
  
• Skill-set: This can work to your advantage or disadvantage depending upon what you want to pursue. Small organisations excel at giving you the opportunity to sample other roles and responsibilities. This is largely due to lack of specialized resources though. If you decide that you do not want to pursue the specialism you came in to do, there are probably plenty of opportunities to retrain on the job. You can end up becoming a jack of all trades, which might limit your potential to get more specialized roles further down the line. Large organisations will help you refine the skills you already have, there are far fewer opportunities to cross-skill. It’s quite rare that you will be assigned a different role. That’s because limiting roles to employee expertise keeps things efficient. As a result, you might be more likely to feel trapped in your existing role.
  
  
• Multi-hatting: At smaller organisations you must multi-hat into different roles whether you like it or not. This does not happen by choice by due to lack of skill specific resources. They just cannot afford to employ multiple people for multiple roles. The advantage, you gain a much wider exposure to various job functions. Just at 3 years of experience, I would don multiple hats right from pre-sales, electrical design, fabrication, programming of controllers, GUI design, onsite installation and commissioning and finally service support. This type of exposure cannot be availed at large organisations. The upside, attaining expertise at a skill-set is much easier. This has its own merits in the longer term.

6. Policies

Small organisations tend to have fewer formal policies and procedures in place. While this is a pro for some, there are those who feel lost without it. And, even for employees who consider a lack of formal policy and procedure a pro, not having certain policies in writing can make work difficult. There is no way to know when you need to go to HR with an issue. Going against your superior is unlikely to yield results even if you are on the right side. Some of them even don’t have a dedicated HR manager. This is where large organisations trump the small ones. Policies are well defined, and everyone adheres to it most of the times. Exceptions are rare. Escalation mechanisms exist and are considered seriously. If you’re the kind of person that thrives in a structured environment, this will be your thing. There are usually set training programs in place, so you learn all the things you need to do to get your job done. Training and policy manuals help guide you. And, there are almost always clear-cut procedures in place to help you make decisions.

7. Job Security and Stability

Considering the time we live in now, in my opinion no job is stable whether it is at a small or a large organisation. Layoff will be an inherent part of the job. The only difference, at a small organisation, often you are considered part of the family, so letting you go may not be as easy. It can be painstaking for the business owner. Sometimes at larger organisations there will be a mandate from someone at the top that cuts will be this deep and they don’t know the people personally. This usually leads to massive layoffs. One difference I can cite though the odds are pretty good that your position won’t suddenly disappear one morning. And, even if it does, there’s also a good chance that you’ll get a severance package if you are laid off. It’s highly likely that you will still get your pay check on time. Although nowadays, even a company that’s been around for decades can suddenly find consumer tastes have changed or that their biggest account has left which can render them to a shutdown.

8. Networking

Small organisations don’t have the same ready-made networks as larger counterparts. On the other hand, you’ll have more opportunities to interact with partners or clients since your job description will be less limited. That allows you to create a strong external network that will prove useful when it’s time to move on. You’ll also get more face time with senior staff, who might have more influence in their industry than the department heads you’ll get to know at a large one. Large organisations have ready-made networks for you to get involved in due to the size of the workforce. You can make tons of useful contacts in a variety of departments that will give you a winning edge when it comes to finding future roles. However, taking time to see clients or customers can be is seen as an inefficiency which they combat by having dedicated account managers or sales teams to do on the company’s behalf. If you’re in a non-client facing role, you’ll rarely get out of the office. In the end, for both what counts is how you leverage the contacts you develop over the years.

9. Future Prospects and Opportunities

Though this largely depends on your role and skill-set, moving from a small organisation can pose hurdles in many situations. The entity you worked for is relatively unknown for the new employer thereby making them more averse towards you. You are more likely to be offered lower salaries to begin with. The recruiters find it difficult to justify a hire from small entities. Your bargaining power remains low. The only exception, you possess a skill-set they desperately need, and the position needs to be closed fast. Moving from a large organisation has lots of benefits. The advantages are definitive. The entity you worked for is known and your role is well defined. For lateral hires, the whole process is a breeze. Salary structure and bands being defined at both places, it’s easy to accommodate you in a new role. More so this becomes more relevant when applying for international opportunities. Recruiters can easily map your existing role and skills to their requirement. Update your CV on job portals and your visibility will be high. You will be the first one recruiters reach out to, a phenomenon which is rare when working for small organisations. The possibility of getting multiple offers simultaneously is high which in turn increases your bargaining power multi-fold.

My take on all of this, it depends on what your aspirations are and what suits you well. This will hugely differ from person to person. I started from a small organisation, gradually made my way up mid-level organisations and now work for a large organisation. Did not start this way by choice. It was more due to the fact that my academic credentials were below par when I graduated, and I did not possess industry relevant skills as a fresher which could deem me employable. It thereby depleted my chances to start my career at large organisations. The initial years were a big struggle. Working for low salaries and excessive work. But the life experiences I had working at small organisations are invaluable. The exposure I got was not something I would get elsewhere. Imagine getting told on any fine day that tomorrow you need to travel to another part of the country for an unknown duration. New territory, new people and heavy work expectations from the client. You reach there after a gruesome 2-day bus-train journey only to end up getting blasted upon arrival from their staff for some malfunctioning old equipment commissioned a decade ago by an unknown person. Then work for 16 hours as they won’t let you leave unless the issue is resolved. At midnight search for some cheap accommodation nearby and dine with limitations as food bills had upper caps. This would go on for weeks. Do this endless travelling all year long only to get a Rs. 2000 appraisal. But what all of this did is that it made me adaptable, efficient, independent, frugal and responsible. These experiences literally shaped me for the person that I am today. Going ahead I migrated to different mid-level organisations where conditions were better. Decent salary, humane ways of travelling, healthier work environment made life better. Things seemed better than expectations due to the past arduous experiences. Domestic travels got converted to international travels. Trains were replaced by planes, rupees were replaced by euros, 12-hour workdays were replaced by 8-hour workdays. The next hop was to a large organisation. Responsibilities increased but so did benefits. Travelling part came down considerably. Work-life balance became healthy and family time went up.

After having experienced all tiers of organisations, I feel glad I started off at the very bottom but equally fortunate that I was able to make it up the rungs at a respectable level. At this stage with added responsibilities from all facets, a large organisation is where I would prefer to work. Would like to get your views on this.

[GTO]

When starting my career, I wouldn't keep the size of the company as a consideration at all. A great company can be small, and a sad company can be big. Instead, I'd focus on the role & responsibility, how much I can learn, the vibe I get, location, first impressions of my direct boss, the company's reputation + product or service and what current employees think of the company.

In a way, I'd treat my first job as a continuing part of my education.

[ampere]

First job really shapes up one's outlook for his/her's professional career. Just like school to college, this is yet another transition. Again the class starts from grade-1 where you need to look to basic elements of learning of a professional career.

So an atmosphere, that defines and breathes such elements is what one needs to look up to. Great learning atmosphere (one which keeps your learning appetite high), people to look up to, great social circle, hobby follow-ups etc are few of them.

Simply put, first few years should all go in that direction.

[NPV]

My opinion from an IT industry perspective..
In the early stages of one's career, most times it's good to start off working in a smaller organisation because one's role will usually not be very restrictive and so opportunities to quickly learn a lot on the job are there for the taking. This is also a time when one shouldnt really worry about the remuneration and give more importance to the technology and team (one learns very quickly by working with experienced folks on the team without any formal mentoring) that is part of the job package.

About 2 decades ago in the IT industry, it was a no-brainer for every developer to be involved in "full stack" development and not just one tier like the front-end or back-end. Gradually, in larger organisations, this gave way to specialisation in one area alone which is rather restrictive in my opinion.

The good news is that "full stack" development is making its way back, slowly but surely in IT services too.

[Thermodynamics]

Thanks for compiling your experience. In general I would agree with your observations on small vs big firms. But it really differs a lot from case to case.

Quite honestly, very few blessed people get a choice on their first job. My advice to fresh graduates would be in the following preference.

1. Get a job first
2. Prefer a core job, one that you are most skilled at
3. Select right field/specialization, talk to your seniors
4. Give importance to personal preferences, brand, package, location etc.,
5. Get an idea about hiring manager, he can make/break your career especially if it is a first job.

[KL01toKA03]

Another perspective from the IT industry. Writing was my passion, and I have been a technical writer for more than 12 years. I started my career at a small organization (120 employees worldwide). The major positive was that almost everyone till the CEO knew what everyone else did. Other positives were flexible work timings, option to work from home, and a handsome pay. There was one problem though. My parents (they were government employees) and their friends had not heard about software companies other than the big IT services companies.

Slightly over 2 years into my first job, I quit, took a pay cut, and joined a company that employed over 100,000 people. To call the experience a huge culture shock would be an understatement. My new job was boring, and it was a world ruled by the HR team, where the most important thing was staying in office for x hours and dressing formally for some client who we would never see. I wanted my world back, and decided to look out for other opportunities. Luckily, I was able to find what I wanted within a few months, and since then I have not even considered joining a "big organization".

Having said all that, I do not expect everyone else to feel the same way. My wife's first job was at a big IT services company. Her career grew in a world where she assumed that all software companies function in the same manner. She too was happy in her world, as I was in mine. I think the number of employees around you do not matter as long as you can do what is good for your career and be happy while doing that.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by rajvardhanraje

After having experienced all tiers of organisations, I feel glad I started off at the very bottom but equally fortunate that I was able to make it up the rungs at a respectable level. At this stage with added responsibilities from all facets, a large organisation is where I would prefer to work. Would like to get your views on this.

It was a bit strange reading your post last night. Half the time I was agreeing with you and then remaining time I was disagreeing with you.

I finally figured why your experience and inferences are so different. You are in a field very different than mine. Also, you worked in organizations whose culture was very different too, these things make a huge difference.

For example, I did work in a small software firm where travel arrangements were non-existent. The company hadn't paid salary in many months. The one time I had to travel from Bangalore to Bombay (in 1992), they double-booked me into non-AC sleeper berth (had to do 69 with a stranger all night ), and after reaching Bombay I found they hadn't even booked a room for me. They had not given me TA/DA for the trip either. The ₹500 I had borrowed from my dad was mainly for my food expenses. So I had to gate-crash into a distant relatives home, thankfully they didn't mind. However, when I ran a similarly sized company much later, none of the Junior staff had to deal with such experiences. So it depends a lot on management, irrespective of the size of the company.

Assuming we address only professionally run companies, whether to start in a small or big company depends a lot on whether you are theory X or theory Y kind of person. If you are a theory X person, join a theory X company. If you are a theory Y person, join a theory Y company. If you have a mismatch here, you will be unhappy. I am a theory Y person, so I was unhappy working at theory X companies. But I enjoyed working in theory Y companies. And I have seen theory X people happy at theory X companies and unhappy working at theory Y companies. These are well defined concepts in management. Abraham Maslow, who is famous for Maslow's hierarchy of needs, also defined the Theory Z. The Theory Z companies try to ensure all their staff reach the 5th level in Maslow's needs, which is self-actualization. This is my goal as an entrepreneur.

[Storm2.0]

This thread by OP is just wow!
I am in a similar boat, entering final year of engineering, interning with a small ~300 people company and at the same time dreaming of getting placed in an MNC but it hires only 2-3 people form the entire branch.
Whatever the OP has mentioned makes complete sense.

I would like to thank the OP and other gentlemen who shared their valuable experiences and thoughts. These are very much useful for a fresher like me who is about to step into the corporate jungle.

[rajvardhanraje]

Originally Posted by Samurai

It was a bit strange reading your post last night. Half the time I was agreeing with you and then remaining time I was disagreeing with you.

I finally figured why your experience and inferences are so different. You are in a field very different than mine. Also, you worked in organizations whose culture was very different too, these things make a huge difference.

Agree with you sir. Our field of industrial automation is vastly different as compared to the IT field. The cultural difference is huge and the jobs are more field based. Small scale companies are mostly service based ones operating on slim margins. Hence the low salaries and allowances. It's quite rare in our field to have smaller product based companies. Lot of them existed in the 90s and the early 2000s. Most of them got gobbled up by the larger ones in a largely competitive environment. Chinese companies came up who sold low cost controllers and interfaces at 30% of what a Siemens or Rockwell counterpart would cost. They rendered the small product companies out of business. The very few that do exist pay their employees well, but most of us being in the service industry had to migrate to larger entities considering financial aspects.

Originally Posted by Samurai

For example, I did work in a small software firm where travel arrangements were non-existent. The company hadn't paid salary in many months. The one time I had to travel from Bangalore to Bombay (in 1992), they double-booked me into non-AC sleeper berth (had to do 69 with a stranger all night ), and after reaching Bombay I found they hadn't even booked a room for me. They had not given me TA/DA for the trip either. The ₹500 I had borrowed from my dad was mainly for my food expenses. So I had to gate-crash into a distant relatives home, thankfully they didn't mind. However, when I ran a similarly sized company much later, none of the Junior staff had to deal with such experiences. So it depends a lot on management, irrespective of the size of the company.

The 69 part literally had me in splits . Even I faced the same predicaments while travelling. Limited advance cash and site visits would go on for weeks. Money management was a big challenge. Finding a hotel only to realize it was over budget. That was frustrating. Really appreciate and respect the way you ran your company where no one had to deal with bad travel experiences. It is a rare phenomenon in our field.

Originally Posted by Samurai

Assuming we address only professionally run companies, whether to start in a small or big company depends a lot on whether you are theory X or theory Y kind of person. If you are a theory X person, join a theory X company. If you are a theory Y person, join a theory Y company. If you have a mismatch here, you will be unhappy. I am a theory Y person, so I was unhappy working at theory X companies. But I enjoyed working in theory Y companies. And I have seen theory X people happy at theory X companies and unhappy working at theory Y companies. These are well defined concepts in management. Abraham Maslow, who is famous for Maslow's hierarchy of needs, also defined the Theory Z. The Theory Z companies try to ensure all their staff reach the 5th level in Maslow's needs, which is self-actualization. This is my goal as an entrepreneur.

The Maslow theory is really interesting. I came across both types of people and the Theory X ones outnumbered the Theory Y ones. Down the line they lagged and the Y ones are in a much better position. The problem is that the X ones still envy the Y ones for what they have achieved not realizing where the problem lies in the first place.

[Jeroen]

Interesting thread, thanks!

As a general rule, I would say it is not about small or big. Although I think you make an interesting comparison and provide some criteria, in practice it can differ wildly. I also have experienced many folks joining a large international organisation for some of the reason mentioned. E.g. international perspective. But when push came to shove, they did not want to move abroad. (Most people are interested in moving to say USA, but most true multinational operate in dozens of countries, not always as pleasant as perhaps the USA. If you are not prepared and come to many pre-requisite, it is not going to work.

I moved from Europe to the USA and then to India. Many people considered that completely nuts!

You need to try and start your career with an organisation that appeals to you. Partly the field that you have studied and want to start your career might have something to with what kind of companies are out there.

I started my career in the merchant navy, which is not the best example for this discussion. But in 1986 I left the Merchant navy and joined quite a small Dutch company specialising in oil/gas/environmental system and industrial automation. When I joined we had less than 20 employees. But it was good fun and very interesting working in such a small team.

When you join a relative small organisation the likelihood of being exposed to other disciplines is very likely. We presented ourselves at various exhibitions. And that meant everybody helped out, building the stand, setting up demo’s, loading and unloading the van, driving back and forth between our office and the exhibition centres. Everybody took turns to man our stand, giving demo’s, providing coffee to customers, clean up at the end to the day.

Not everybody is interested in working like that, but I was and still am.

You can’t compare working for a start up to joining a regular organisation, be it big or small. Different worlds, and therefor a completely different experience for you as new employee.

in general I would say be cautious on how detailled you try and plan out your career. I find it is much more important to keep an open mind on what the future might bring. Having some direction where you would like to go is important. The biggest choice many of us face at some time is, do you want to become a manager or prefer to work in a more specialised role?

My experience having worked all over the world in all kinds of organisations is that real talent always makes it to the top, and rarely through very detailled planning. They will just excel at anything that is thrown at them, ask for more and most importantly ask for different things, way outside their comfort zone.

The ability to go after things, outside your comfort zone, is probably the single most important attribute you can have. That is the sort of folks that you will see zig/zagging through organisations. Not necessarily vertical up, but they take constant steps, sidewise, diagonally etc.

Jeroen

[Nav-i-gator]

I will tell you the best of both the worlds - a Big MNC that is just starting its business in India. India office will be flush with money (investment mode), you will get handsome salary, excellent perks (based on what they have in their home country, before local HR is hired and start to implement local market specific C&B policies) and a lot of freedom to start from the scratch, be in project mode, design and implement processes (and a lot of opportunities to get international exposure, fast growth etc).

[warrioraks]

Originally Posted by rajvardhanraje

Would like to get your views on this.

Just loved your observations and analysis. Thanks for sharing.

I have never worked in a small organization so do not have any strong beliefs here. But let me still try to put forward my analysis based on what I know. In my first job, one of the senior managers explained the hourglass model of career development within my first week of joining. The model essentially means that for majority of professionals (in my line of business), the experiences and expectations are going to follow the curve of an hourglass:

• At the base (career starting point), you are practically a generalist who is expected to pickup what comes your way. More breadth than depth.
• As you grow towards middle-management, you start specializing in a specific area and pickup more depth than breadth.
• Growing to middle-management and beyond requires you to become a generalist again. You end up being jack of many trades and master of only a few.

Hourglass model of career progression (Source: Google)


Now applying this model to the question - small vs big organizations to start a career. It seems a small organization is a better fit considering the broader scope of opportunities/exposure it provides to employees. In other words, a smaller organization would typically make a better generalist out of you. Based on multiple hats you would wear in a small time organization, you can decide on which one interests you most to the extent that you want to make a living out of it. At the end of the day, you want to work on something which creatively challenges you.

Once you are beyond the starting point of your career, it becomes a matter of what suits you from an aspiration perspective.
From my experience, one of the sweet spots between big vs small companies is to work with newly established teams within big corporate setups. Initially, these new teams tend to be run like pseudo-startups. You end up in a small empowered team with a lot of crazy problems to solve and sure-shot ambiguity on job roles leading to broader exposure.
Ultimately, what you get is a culture of innovation and high energy with the backing of a big firm. The downside is that you still have to work around processes of a big organization which we all know tends to get bureaucratic. But you ignore these as minor niggles provided you have a good boss and a healthy work environment. A setup like this can do wonders for your well-being (professionally as well as personally).

At the end of the day, there is no singular path to success. Heck, there is no singular definition of success. So for anyone who is starting their first job, all they should focus on is giving their best. Rest will follow.
Jeroen has articulated it in a 100 times better way than I could.

Originally Posted by Jeroen

My experience having worked all over the world in all kinds of organisations is that real talent always makes it to the top, and rarely through very detailled planning. They will just excel at anything that is thrown at them, ask for more and most importantly ask for different things, way outside their comfort zone.

The ability to go after things, outside your comfort zone, is probably the single most important attribute you can have. That is the sort of folks that you will see zig/zagging through organisations. Not necessarily vertical up, but they take constant steps, sidewise, diagonally etc.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by warrioraks

At the base (career starting point), you are practically a generalist who is expected to pickup what comes your way. More breadth than depth.

Your manager was right. One should start as a generalist, and few years later can turn into a specialist in an area of interest. However, large IT services companies in India made it very hard by turning ON their recruitment vacuum cleaner at most colleges, and then turn them into specialists from day one. Had discussed this in a post in 2013.

[prasathlr]

I started my IT career in a FinTech startup with hardly 100 employees. The work was hectic but was challenging at the same time. Most of my friends were employed in the big IT firms. They used to post pictures of team outings, concerts organised by their companies, amenities like swimming pool, gym, recreational area. I used to be envious of them, I wanted to work in such a "cool" environment. My first company couldn't afford any of the above mentioned things as they were just starting off and financial constraints.

After couple of years, finally got a chance to work for a Fortune 500 company. I was excited to complete my notice period. Everyone that I knew in the small company tried to talk me out of it. My managers, directors and even the owners of the company tried reasoning with me that leaving this company wasn't a good decision since it was in a bullish growth phase. I was stubborn and ended up joining the Fortune 500 company.

My excitement was short-lived. All the amenities looked great from the outside but I hardly ended up using them. On the work front I was relegated to a one small part of the product, everyone working there knew only one part of that particular product whereas when I was working in the small company, I knew the product end to end. I was given the opportunity to explore and work on almost every aspect of the product in my ex-company. I would describe that I had become invisible in large office floor of the MNC. My manager knew me, no one beyond my manager probably knew that I existed. There was nothing challenging in the work, it was the same repetitive and boring task. There was no fulfillment or content in the work I was doing.

People of my similar experience hardly knew anything about the product except that one part they were exposed but they were excellent in that one part they were doing. I was not able to sustain my interest any longer. In the smaller company, everyone knew each other. My work felt appreciated, I was compensated well and at the same time the work was challenging. I learnt something new every other month. I lasted in the MNC for a year and ended up re-joining my ex-company.

I did notice a pattern among my friends. People who started in smaller companies preferred it over bigger companies while people who started in bigger companies preferred it over smaller companies.

[warrioraks]

Originally Posted by Samurai

Your manager was right. One should start as a generalist, and few years later can turn into a specialist in an area of interest. However, large IT services companies in India made it very hard by turning ON their recruitment vacuum cleaner at most colleges, and then turn them into specialists from day one. Had discussed this in a post in 2013.

You enforced the deduction in my previous post - small organisations seem to be better when it comes to starting a career.

Ironic as it may sound, if one wants to be a generalist, working hard and being talented actually goes against you most of the times in a large organisation. There are very few managers who would truly support their strong performers exploring outside world for the fear of losing them. Ultimately leading to cocooned employees.
On the other hand, few large organisations do exist which are able to propagate fungibility of skills in true spirit. This reflects in the quality of things they produce and overall employee morale. So obviously there is something beyond size of the organisation which matters.

In my opinion, that thing is CULTURE. Unfortunately, Indian organisations are not known for it.