The 85 employees of Torrent Networking Technologies Corp. in Silver Spring, US, struck gold last April when their small communications manufacturing firm was purchased by giant Ericsson AB of Sweden for $450 million, a bundle that the employees shared in varying degrees with investors, writes The Washington Post.

Start-up successes like Torrent are the high-octane additives that energise the economies of the nation and its regions, according to Cambridge, Massachusetts-based analyst David Birch, who calls them the gazelles of the business world.

The latest analysis by Birch's Cognetics Inc. cites fresh evidence of how important small start-ups are to job creation.

As the nation emerged from the recession of 1990-91, ``it was the younger firms that carried the economy'', Birch said. ``On average, the younger the firm, the faster it grew.''

Firms with 19 or fewer employees in 1994 increased their employment by nearly 19 per cent on average over the 1994-98 period. Bycontrast, mid-size firms (20-99 employees in 1994) grew 8 per cent on average; firms with 100 to 4,999 employees expanded by 5 per cent, and the largest firms grew just 1 per cent over the four years.

Looking at state-by-state job growth, Birch concludes that the more growth that's going on among smaller firms, the more vibrant a state's economy tends to be. Small firms in the Washington region increased payrolls more than 24 per cent over 1994-98, well above the national average. That's one of the reasons the region made Birch's list of top 10 economic ``hot spots'' nationally. Other analysts say Birch's conclusions can be misunderstood if you don't pay attention to what the numbers actually say.

In this case, Cognetics took a comprehensive list of 14,000 US business establishments in 1994 and tracked how employment at each firm had changed by 1998.

His report doesn't mean, for instance, that small firms provided the bulk of the nation's job growth last year. Some of the most successful companiesaccelerated rapidly after 1994 and had hundreds of employees last year-but they are still in the 1-to-19-employee category, based on their 1994 status.The point, Birch says, is that companies that started small in 1994 created jobs at a much faster rate over the four-year period than their larger competitors did. ``If you're trying to find a place to work or invest, this is where you should look.'' In the shadow of the boss!

A New York Times writer Michelle Cottle responds to readers' questions about career and workplace issues. If you have some queries, you can send them, too, to working@nytimes.com. If your questions are relevant, you'll find the answer on the Website of the newspaper. Here's a sample:

I am a middle manager in a medium-sized company where nothing happens without the chief executive's approval. She is detail-oriented and strong-willed. Though some members of my staff get a charge from knowing that the chief is monitoring their projects, I wonder whether citing her wishes too often willundercut my own authority. This is of particular concern on those occasions when my staff and I are of one opinion, but the chief has other ideas. Should I present the boss's position as if I shared it, or make clear that I'm only carrying out her plans?

Michelle replies: It's one thing to let people know that the big boss is interested in their work. It's quite another to emphasise that she's micromanaging every part of the show. Keep it up, and someone will eventually ask: So what do we need you for? Constantly invoking the boss' name weakens your position, said Andrew J DuBrin, a professor of management at the Rochester Institute of Technology and author of The Complete Idiot's Guide to Leadership (Macmillan, 1997). ``You become a conduit instead of an authority in your own right.''

By highlighting your lack of autonomy, you lose the respect of people both below and above you, said Roger Fritz, president of Organization Development Consultants in Naperville, Illinois. ``The people that report to youwill start asking, legitimately, why is she here? The company is always talking about saving money, so why do we have to have this superfluous person around?'' And as for the chief executive, Fritz said, ``In her heart of hearts, she's not going to respect you, either.'' Start to change things by leaving your boss' name out of planning discussions with your staff. ``Take the plans and decisions and personalise them,'' DuBrin advised. Have the confidence to tell the staff why you think Plan A is the right course without using the boss as back-up.

When you and the boss don't see eye to eye, resist the urge to distance yourself publicly from her plan. You should, of course, discuss your objections with her and look for compromise. But once a decision has been made, accept it. ``It's very important to show unity in an organisation,'' DuBrin said. ``It undermines your character as a leader to say, `I don't really believe in this; it's just what the boss wants'.'' That not only makes you look weak, he added, italso undermines the chief executive's authority.

Look for ways to convey the boss's interest in a project without conveying her meddling tendencies, DuBrin suggested. ``Say things like: `The CEO is very excited about what we're doing'. Or, `She thinks our plans fit right into the corporate strategy'.''

Of course, changing people's perceptions is only part of the struggle. For the sake of your own career development, you should keep working to increase your independence and authority. While having the boss make all the decisions may make your job easier in the short term, Fritz said, ``it's unlikely that you're learning a whole heck of a lot being a conduit for an egomaniac.''