How to Develop Your Own Methodology in a Small Company?

Time： 2024-10-17 Column：PM views：203

Employees in small companies often envy the methodology systems of large corporations. While they may be versatile in a small company, they often feel they lack competitiveness. So, how can one create their own methodology and improve competitiveness?

Employees in small companies often lament, “I may wear many hats, but I feel completely uncompetitive.”

Even though large company employees joke that they are merely cogs in the machine, they still enjoy better working conditions, more resources, higher pay, and more exposure to the outside world. More importantly, even as a "cog," they have at least one area where they can demonstrate solid professional skills.

Small company employees envy their counterparts at large companies, trying to learn the so-called "big company methodologies" and apply them to their smaller workplace, hoping for a miracle.

Similarly, employees at large companies often believe that if they ever want to start their own business or join a startup, their transition should be easy.

However, both these approaches often lead to unsatisfactory outcomes.

In my view, small company jobs face three major pitfalls: lack of resources, poor structure, and chaotic processes.

These challenges are inherent, and without changing your mindset, it's impossible to achieve the desired outcomes. Let’s explore these one by one.

01 Resources in Large Companies vs. Small Companies

Previously, I worked closely with a major industry figure. Due to my position and my access to a large group of student users, I rarely lacked business collaboration resources.

These resources came from other companies within the group, different departments, or connections through senior executives. Opportunities were abundant, and resources were highly concentrated and of significant scale.

My role was simply to filter out the most reliable resources for collaboration.

However, when starting my own business or joining a startup, resources were often unavailable, and I needed to bring my own or create new resources.

This is also why some startups offer salaries higher than those at large companies — part of that pay compensates for the candidate’s resource value.

This also explains why some individuals from large companies feel out of place in startups, giving off an impression of overestimating their abilities or being impractical. They are used to working based on pre-allocated resources. Without those resources, they are lost.

The biggest gap between a large company and a startup is that in the latter, a significant part of the job is creating resources for the company.

Is the lack of resources in small companies unsolvable? Not necessarily. To address the issue of resources, we first need to understand the concept of resources.

What Are Resources?

When we talk about resources, we usually refer to business resources.

Business resources encompass a wide range of tangible and intangible assets with commercial value, including individuals.

Some examples include guests, venues, materials, skilled team members, sponsors, media coverage, professional training, funds, partner organizations, media outlets, volunteers, execution staff, time, budget, etc.

When searching for resources, what should you keep in mind?

First, be clear about the purpose of the resource.

Many people claim they can't find resources, but often, the real issue is they don't know what they need them for. Resources are there to be used, and if you don't use them, someone else will.

Resources won’t just announce themselves, saying, “Here I am, waiting for you to use me anytime.”

For example, after working for some time, you may encounter people casually saying, "Let's collaborate if we get the chance," but then nothing happens. Similarly, if you run a self-media platform, you might receive vague cooperation inquiries.

Is it that you don’t want to cooperate? Of course not. But without a clear explanation of the purpose, it's impossible to respond.

If you want to acquire resources, at least clearly articulate their purpose.

Second, consider the collaboration model for the resources.

Paying for resources is a luxury large companies can afford. Small companies, however, often have very limited budgets, so they need to devise creative collaboration models to acquire resources.

Some common models include:

1. Resource Exchange

This typically involves two or more parties, where each offers something of little use to themselves in exchange for something valuable from the other party.

For example, a small company might exchange excess inventory for a sponsorship booth at a high-quality event. Large companies sometimes give away small promotional items to partners to promote themselves.

2. Resource Integration

In the context of small companies, this means creating a temporary team, combining multiple smaller entities to create a new advantage, elevating the scale or level of resources, and then using that new strength to negotiate larger collaborations.

3. Combining Virtual and Real Resources

The "virtual" part here doesn’t mean making things up; rather, it involves converting future potential into present-day resources.

For instance, when faced with high venue rental fees, you might negotiate to pay part of the cost and offer something else, like helping the venue attract more customers or sharing profits from the event.

Lastly, Resource Management Is Key

If you're in a small company and fail to manage resources properly, you’ll find yourself struggling, constantly "reloading" by searching and filtering unreliable options. This repetitive, unproductive workload can overwhelm you.

Always remember: after any business activity, it’s crucial to evaluate, filter, store, and maintain high-quality resources. This applies to both companies and individuals — reliable resources lead to reliable results.

02 Expecting Ideal Setup from a Company? You’re Bound to Be Disappointed.

If we consider the world to be a large makeshift setup, large companies might not be filled with elites, but at least they have a complete team. On the other hand, small companies often struggle to find even enough qualified talent to make things work.

I’ve served a few businesses, many of them small or medium-sized. The bosses of these companies often tell me, "If there’s someone who can bring clear revenue to the company, salary is not an issue."

The ideal is rich, but reality is often quite lean.

Even if such people exist, they usually opt to leverage larger platforms to amplify their skills and reap greater rewards, or they create their own opportunities. Rarely do they come to small companies.

If you want to convince someone to join, you either have to offer them a grand vision or pay beyond their expectations.

Even if someone with the right skills joins, they’ll still need time to adapt to the small company’s operating system, and most bosses can’t afford the time and financial cost for this adjustment. In essence, it comes down to the fact that many bosses simply don’t have enough money to hire better talent (I know this might offend some bosses).

Business is about revenue exceeding costs. So, the people who get hired are often seen as just slightly below that revenue threshold. These employees might not meet the ideal expectations, but they can get the job done — any more, and they’d exceed the budget.

Only highly profitable companies can afford to overstaff, like ByteDance, for example. However, in startups, you often see two team members, working on 1.5 salaries, doing the work of 3 to 6 people.

In such circumstances, if you’re managing a small company team with an incomplete setup and less capable members, what should you do?

The answer: Focus on the core and intervene in key areas, while lowering expectations in other parts.

Here’s a recent example:

I noticed that my business partner had some issues when communicating with the client’s team responsible for private traffic (direct user engagement).

From her perspective, she had already provided the SOPs and content materials needed. However, the private traffic team felt that the materials were too vague, saying they couldn’t understand them or figure out how to implement them (this team member had little experience in managing private traffic). On top of that, many tasks were rushed and chaotic, making the collaboration painful.

In the project meeting, I intervened briefly and did the following:

I clarified the main tasks and workflow of the private traffic team.
I identified the specific pain points and what expectations or unmet needs were causing the roadblocks.
I determined which needs could be met by adjusting processes later and which ones the private traffic team needed to adjust their expectations for, given the best possible solution for now.
Finally, I made a confirmation: who was responsible for supporting, how the support would happen, when to push forward, and when to provide feedback.

In this collaboration process, the issues usually stem from two key factors: how tasks are communicated and how they are understood. However, these problems are often also influenced by work style differences and, sometimes, even generational differences.

Some people need a clear plan of action before executing it step by step. Others can’t cover every detail in the initial planning, so they take action first and then gradually flesh things out. In startups, the latter approach is far more common.

Therefore, my handling of the situation had two key points:

I first clarified the already defined aspects of the project and ensured they were streamlined for smooth execution (clear the main tasks and adjust the direction as needed).
For other parts where there were no clear answers or better solutions, I focused on implementing the best current solution to minimize hesitation and debate, clarifying immediate expectations.

After resolving the collaboration block, I communicated with my partner, adjusted her expectations (not expecting the other team to handle copywriting themselves), and provided more detailed content. The project then progressed smoothly.

In this process, you can see my logic:

First, I typically clarify the core deliverables and standards for my work, then identify who I need to collaborate with and who is responsible for each part.

Second, I check whether the content delivered meets my standards. If not, as long as there’s no fundamental problem, I don’t directly criticize. Instead, I try to understand their thought process by asking questions, figuring out the logic behind what they produced.

Lastly, I remove any barriers to understanding. People have different work styles or habits, and their understanding of the same issue can vary. So, after understanding their thought process, I further explore any unmet needs they have. I provide support where necessary and adjust expectations where needed.

03 All Systems Must Grow in the Right Soil

Like many who have worked in large corporations, I went through a painful period when I left a well-established company. Having seen so many top-tier designs and efficient systems, I assumed I would have an advantage in a startup. However, reality soon gave me a harsh lesson.

Initially, I rushed to create a complete operational system for the startup, adjusting policies and changing the organizational structure. This led to the team complaining endlessly. Instead of improving efficiency, the changes disrupted the project flow.

With more experience, I’ve learned that different stages require different systems and have come to better understand why companies make certain decisions from their perspective.

For example, many SaaS providers think they have stronger features and more professional staff, so why is it still so difficult to win customers? The reason lies in a lack of respect for the market.

What does that mean?

Companies can’t just switch SaaS providers easily, as their entire management structure is built around these systems. A change would mean modifying business processes, resulting in periods of decreased productivity, adjustment periods, and eventual adaptation. The potential losses during this transition make companies reluctant to switch providers.

At my previous company, I initially rushed to showcase our robust features, only to find it didn’t work. Later, I paid more attention to understanding the client’s core needs, highlighting features that addressed those needs, and making incremental adjustments to their workflow, setting clear expectations. Things then went much more smoothly.

Back to pushing system construction in a small company: the same logic applies.

Don’t try to raise a "60-point" performer to a "90-point" one all at once by adjusting the system. Instead, make gradual, rhythmic improvements from specific areas to the whole.

During this process, some people may leave due to the adjustments, and new hires will be needed to fill those gaps. What’s important is allowing the new system to take effect in a steady, rhythmic manner.