

The Open Enterprise Manifesto - kabuks
http://bettermeans.com/front/?page_id=306

======
lsc
> 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.

~~~
kabuks
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.

------
lsc
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.

~~~
kabuks
> 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

~~~
lsc
>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.

~~~
_delirium
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.

~~~
keemoboy
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' :)

~~~
lsc
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.

