Small Fish in a Big Pond or Big Fish in a Small Pond

Be a small fish in a big pond or a big fish in a small pond? This question intrigues me every so often. I have frequently heard the same fundamental question, and its myriad versions, from my friends, colleagues, and family members. Though largely used in the context of career choices, it can apply to a wider spectrum of decisions – the college or university we attend, where we choose to live, interest areas we decide to pursue (or not), and so on.

Before we explore this idea further, I’d like to clarify what I mean by this phrase. Big fish in a small pond refers to a setting where you are more powerful/important/influential than your, rather small, peer group. This offers the advantage of being well-known within the group, having influence and, to some extent, control over the surroundings, and greater recognition amid a disproportionate share of available opportunities. On the flip side, there is limited room to grow, along with a potential sense of complacency that can creep in due to a lack of competition. Small fish in a big pond refers to having lesser power/importance than your peers in a much larger group. It has the benefit of far more potential growth opportunities (though it is harder to land them by virtue of being a small fish), more leeway to experience new things/roles, and an opportunity to learn from a wider peer network. On the down side, it comes with limited influence and therefore a need to work harder to survive and thrive in the larger ecosystem, and a lesser-known identity within the cohort.

To me there is no clear answer as to which is the preferable choice, as the answer depends on a number of criteria, which in turn are often situation-based. For the purpose of analyzing this, let’s focus on the question of career choices, since it’s the most typical use case. Consider the following variables.

1.     Experience Level:  Are you in the initial phase of your career, are midway into it, or are at a senior position?

For someone just beginning his/her career, there could be a lot to learn and gain from being part of a small(er) set-up. Smaller organizations provide an opportunity to get much more exposure, beyond the usual confines of the job description, while a large company offers an opportunity to be a part of a bigger brand that can make you more saleable, and grant you more perspective. While I would personally recommend the former, it is a matter of personal preference.

For someone with 10–20 years of experience, the focus may be stability and long-term opportunities, which a bigger brand is likely to provide. On the contrary, for some others in the same boat, it could be about the importance of a senior role in a smaller firm.

For someone who is really senior and approaching the end of their professional career, familiarity with and stability within the place of work would probably outweigh other aspects, and the size of the pond may become irrelevant altogether.

2.     Stage of Life: What obligations a person has – for instance, a family (small or large) to support – also play an important role in the decision-making process. Other questions to consider here would be the relative work–life balance one wants to achieve.

Everything else being constant, the more responsibilities we have, the more stability we are likely to chase.

For those looking for work–life balance, larger organizations are typically the best fit on account of a stronger need for processes. While smaller companies often have more fluidity and constructive chaos that can affect work–life balance at times, they are not sticklers for process, and being a big fish in a small firm can bring its own privileges of flexibility.

3.     Long-term Career Objective: Is it to scale the corporate ladder irrespective of the functional role by being a generalist? Is it about pursuing a specific function/domain? Or charting your course in the land of entrepreneurs?

For those wanting to be a generalist, the choice is really about being opportunistic. The decision will depend on if you are realizing your potential at the big pond or if you’d prefer to take on a more senior role at a smaller pond because the timing is right.

For those pursuing functional expertise, the big pond typically offers far greater potential to learn and develop vs. a smaller pond.

For those seeking the entrepreneurial path, multiple roads lead to this destination. One road is through the bigger pond where the candidate benefits from the brand and potentially higher monetary benefits that help him/her prepare for an entrepreneurial launch. For some others, it could be a more diversified exposure that comes with being part of a smaller pond. The network and idea that’s critical for launching any venture could come from either of the two roads. 

4.     Risk Appetite: Do you prefer the comfort of stability or are you more excited by potentially unfamiliar situations that could offer exponential growth?

At the fundamental level, our inherent risk appetite plays a critical role in determining what we are comfortable with, and thus, pursue. For some, the smaller pond that offers a higher degree of influence provides comfort and lower risk, while for others the same feeling will manifest from being a part of a larger set-up with more long-term opportunities.

Even within the single variable of experience level (or any other for that matter), this choice depends on the individual facing it, and there isn’t a generalization that can be made. A further complication is that when making this decision, we have to play with interlinking variables, and each variable, in turn, has multiple dependencies and variations. For example, let’s say a person with 10–12 years of experience has to decide between staying in a smaller firm with a better title and role, or move to a bigger brand in a smaller role, but higher potential long-term opportunities, and a 20% increase in compensation. The choice will be heavily influenced by the stage of life (single/married/married with kids/financial commitments, etc.), career objective (being a generalist vs. a specialist, or climbing corporate ladder vs. being a functional expert), and risk appetite (i.e., what gives the person comfort and safety – a known smaller/larger place or the role) at the time.

TLDR: There are three key takeaways from this analysis and my experience over the last 15 years. 

First, it is essential to undergo both these experiences several times during our careers. This is primarily driven by the fact that our careers are a marathon and not a sprint, requiring us to do different things (not always in our comfort zone) in different settings to achieve our goals. 

Second, every individual’s situation and natural inclinations are different even when faced with the same set of opportunities and choices, so when confronted with the Fish & Pond conundrum, you may take input and inspiration from others but the final decision rests solely on what floats your boat. It is not just fine but recommended to chart your own course to achieve your goals, than following another’s path. 

Third, everything is relative – i.e., these decisions are best looked at from a point-in-time view. What worked for a person at one point in time may not work in another. Small pond vs. big pond is always relative – what maybe a big pond for one person could be a small pond for the other. And what is a big pond for someone at a certain point of time may become small over a period of time.