> What if corporations were democracies… free of politics?
wow.
Overall, though, it has some interesting points. I especially like what they said about values- I think values can be looked at as a set of /simple/ rules that can be used to make the best decision when the entire system is complex. Even if your 'best decision' is 'maximize long term profit' I think that a good set of values simplifies the decision making process at each step of the way.
I find it interesting that they keep using Visa as an example, though. I think visa is innovative, yes, but not in the socially positive, sustainable way. Visa attempts to lock in it's market, and then to charge based on 'value provided' rather than 'cost of production plus some profit' Of course, that happens in all markets when customers can't move. Visa is in an interesting situation because they only have one real competitor, and because they are in a situation where the people making the decision to use them or not (consumers) are different from the people who pay their fees (merchants.) Still- Visa isn't a company I'd hold up as a paragon of 'values' because of this. I'm not saying what they are doing should be illegal or anything, but it's certainly not good for society.
yeah, we definitely need to change that "democracies... free of politics" line. A more accurate statement would be something like "What if corporations where meritocracies... free(er) of personal politics"
As for Visa, I completely agree with you, they are in no way an inspiration on the social enterprise or 'values' front. They are however a really good example of how an innovation in organizational governance (namely a decentralized meritocracy) can be leveraged to compete effectively. They didn't start out with only one competitor. At the time they started Americard had the lion's share.
And I totally agree that the consumers are different from the people who pay the fees. Dee Hock (the founder) notes in his biography that one of his biggest regrets was his failure to give the consumers and the merchants decision-making power in the governance of VISA.
They also have an ... interesting ... system of handing compensation. This is something I thought would be super important when I started my business. "Oh," I thought, "I must set up compensation so that everyone gets paid for the parts of the outcome I want" - I thought that the customer service should get a bonus when people who called stuck with us (and a bigger bonus when they didn't call back) and that sales needed a bonus when people signed up, but that bonus should be small at first and grow as the people stay signed up (and didn't call customer service) - I had a rather complex system of remuneration for all the people who would work at an ISP.
The problem is that I was designing a compensation system for myself. I really like it when my income is tied directly to my actions and effectiveness. The problem is, people like that go start businesses.
From what I've seen, good values and reasonable management motivate as well or better than small monetary bonuses.
> I really like it when my income is tied directly to my actions and effectiveness. The problem is, people like that go start businesses.
That's exactly the problem! For me personally, I only want to work with people who want their compensation directly tied to their actions (contribution). One way to look at what we're trying to build, is a governance system that would allow multiple entrepreneurs to work together. To create another choice besides wage slave/free lancer/founder
>For me personally, I only want to work with people who want their compensation directly tied to their actions (contribution)
Really? Why? The thing is, Engineers who are also entrepreneurial types are /much/ more expensive than engineers of equivalent skill who are not entrepreneurial.
I'm not saying what you are trying to do is useless; I think it's very interesting, and I'd like to see how it plays out. But I am saying that there are problems with limiting yourself to only hiring entrepreneurial types.
Anecdotally, non-entrepreneurial engineers are also more likely to stick around long-term, if your workplace is enjoyable and the pay/benefits are good. It's hard to keep an entrepreneurial type around too long unless your company is the kind that's always launching new products or projects. If you want someone to build and maintain a system with a 10-year horizon, it's probably not going to be the same kind of personality who makes for a serial entrepreneur.
I agree with both these points, but I disagree that wanting yourself and others on your team to be paid for the work you do, no more, no less, is the same thing as being entrepreneurial. There are many attributes that make someone entrepreneurial and there are many reasons people don't just start their own businesses. Getting paid for the work you do instead of being on a salary definitely has similar unpredictability, so it needs someone to be less risk averse than they're used to in their regular 9-5, but I think it's much more about freedom and fairness and these are qualities any engineer (or human being for that matter) craves. If I know I will get paid exactly for what I do I'm free to work as hard or as little as I want depending on my interest in the current project and whatever personal circumstances come my way. There isn't this unhealthy pull/push that happens in partnerships where people are constantly expected to do x% of the work. And I'm also free to not let my work rule my life, I'm in complete control. I think those who want to get paid for exactly the work they do are more akin to freelancers than entrepreneurs, emphasis on the 'free' :)
well, one thing I've learned in my business is that you don't need to make /everyone/ happy, you just need to make something /some/ people are willing to pay for, so don't listen too much to us naysayers.
8 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 31.5 ms ] threadwow.
Overall, though, it has some interesting points. I especially like what they said about values- I think values can be looked at as a set of /simple/ rules that can be used to make the best decision when the entire system is complex. Even if your 'best decision' is 'maximize long term profit' I think that a good set of values simplifies the decision making process at each step of the way.
I find it interesting that they keep using Visa as an example, though. I think visa is innovative, yes, but not in the socially positive, sustainable way. Visa attempts to lock in it's market, and then to charge based on 'value provided' rather than 'cost of production plus some profit' Of course, that happens in all markets when customers can't move. Visa is in an interesting situation because they only have one real competitor, and because they are in a situation where the people making the decision to use them or not (consumers) are different from the people who pay their fees (merchants.) Still- Visa isn't a company I'd hold up as a paragon of 'values' because of this. I'm not saying what they are doing should be illegal or anything, but it's certainly not good for society.
As for Visa, I completely agree with you, they are in no way an inspiration on the social enterprise or 'values' front. They are however a really good example of how an innovation in organizational governance (namely a decentralized meritocracy) can be leveraged to compete effectively. They didn't start out with only one competitor. At the time they started Americard had the lion's share.
And I totally agree that the consumers are different from the people who pay the fees. Dee Hock (the founder) notes in his biography that one of his biggest regrets was his failure to give the consumers and the merchants decision-making power in the governance of VISA.
The problem is that I was designing a compensation system for myself. I really like it when my income is tied directly to my actions and effectiveness. The problem is, people like that go start businesses.
From what I've seen, good values and reasonable management motivate as well or better than small monetary bonuses.
That's exactly the problem! For me personally, I only want to work with people who want their compensation directly tied to their actions (contribution). One way to look at what we're trying to build, is a governance system that would allow multiple entrepreneurs to work together. To create another choice besides wage slave/free lancer/founder
Really? Why? The thing is, Engineers who are also entrepreneurial types are /much/ more expensive than engineers of equivalent skill who are not entrepreneurial.
I'm not saying what you are trying to do is useless; I think it's very interesting, and I'd like to see how it plays out. But I am saying that there are problems with limiting yourself to only hiring entrepreneurial types.