Are big and small different?

One dilemma often encountered in the MBA internship and job search is whether to work for a large or small company. The standard advice I have heard is to work for the big company first, to learn best practices in a mature organization, and then take these skills to a small/young company second. But I think there is a counterpoint in the breadth of vision gained at a small company. For example, consider the question of staffing.

As a general manager of a small company (approx. 20 employees), I made the mistake of managing staff levels too tightly in order to minimize cost. By the time I realized the need to hire, it had become very difficult to find the time to do a quality job of the search and selection. Having lived through this experience, I can now see the exact same thing playing out in very large companies. Shell makes a conscious effort to invest in HR capacity in order to maintain high quality staffing decision. The HR folks at another large energy company are stretched too thin and are having difficulty maintaining quality in their recruitment process. This will inevitably lead to difficulty in attracting the best candidates, which can exacerbate a vicious cycle. I know from my GM experience at a small company that this is a difficult hole to climb out of even for a large company. You start to accept warm bodies rather than matching skills to roles, which will reduce the effectiveness of the whole organization.

The point: small organizations are not so different from large organizations and working for a small one can allow you to get involved in a broader range of managerial activities.

Thinking like HR/Recruiting

As the end of my internship approaches, I am focused on turning it into a job offer. A final presentation on my activities to a panel of evaluators is meant to cover the skills and traits Shell values - capacity, achievement, and relationships. I am finding it remarkably natural to demonstrate these three criteria. I am a smart guy with academic credentials (capacity) who is goal oriented and results driven (achievement) and build lasting relationships over a long period of time (relationships). My conclusion: Shell and I are a good match. The importance of this statement can't be overstated because these same three criteria will form the basis for performance evaluations and promotions throughout my career at Shell (If I succeed in landing the job offer). In contrast, went through several rounds of interviews with a consulting firm before failing to get an offer for summer internship. Their feedback on why I didn't get an offer? They valued charisma and assertiveness and weren't sure I could "own the room" the minute I entered. In hindsight, I now see that they would not have been a good match for me. To succeed in that company, I would have had to change myself into an assertive personality with confidence over dialog... not who I am in my core. So one lesson I am learning from this internship is the importance of finding a match between the person and the "culture" (an over-used buzzword), and how to search for this match: think like an HR recruiter for the company and ask what they are scanning the crowd to find. Is it you?