Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Toward the Open Company

Posted by kdawson on from the putting-it-on-the-line dept.

Arto Stimms writes "The author of the e text editor is using the principles of open source to transform his company into an Open Company. Not only is he releasing the source, the company itself becomes totally open: no concept of bosses or employees. Anyone can join in at any time, doing whatever task they find interesting, for whatever time they find appropriate. This is in service of the idea of 'the real freedom zero': the freedom to decide for yourself what you want to work on."

6 of 272 comments (clear)

  1. I don't think it will work... by Thelasko · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This is the kind of thinking that made the hippie commune into the corporate juggernaut it is today. By "corporate juggernaut" I mean, virtually extinct.

    The best "Open" corporate structure I've ever head of was a company that had a policy where no person could make more than seven times as much money as any other person in the company.

    --
    One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    1. Re:I don't think it will work... by JoeMerchant · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The best "Open" corporate structure I've ever head of was a company that had a policy where no person could make more than seven times as much money as any other person in the company.

      Ben & Jerry tried that, gave it up after a few years... nobody wants to buy $23/quart ice cream and they just couldn't get competent executive management to stick around at 7x the salary of cost competitive labor.

    2. Re:I don't think it will work... by Esc7 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I know by your handle this is going to fall on deaf ears but:

      Your theoretical example is perfectly logical. Unfortunately I'm having a hard time transferring it to a real world example in my company, or other companies.

      Now if one person made oranges and the other made gold bars it would make perfect sense. But people don't "make" oranges. They pick them. Or they plant them. Or they tell people when to pick them or plant them. Or they supervise people who tell other people when to pick or plant or water them. A little more complicated now right?

      What people produce isn't really goods, it is "work" that is added to things to make them more valuable. Turning a lump of clay into a statue. Turning libraries and code into programs. Turning ore into metal. Turning disparate data into a useful statistical analysis for the rest of the company.

      Unless you're talking about yesteryear artisans and craftsmen, you're going to be hard pressed to find a person who completely produces a good with no help. In fact, some would say the whole point of modern industrialization is that we take complicated things and break them down so we can move any person around and still produce the same good.

      And when the production isn't an assembly line anymore and becomes this complex web of people who do jobs which effects are near impossible to quantify, well I would say hugely differing salaries are not as defensible. Plus having this "artificial" limit tells the employees that if there is a rising tide, it will raise all ships. People like fairness and equality and the feeling that someone gives a damn about you and if this policy accomplishes that, good for them.

    3. Re:I don't think it will work... by ClosedSource · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The reason that CEOs get paid more than they are worth is that executive compensation is really a big circle-jerk.

      A CEO of one company is typically a board member of several others. Nobody in the game is motivated to keep salaries in check because they don't want to limit their own.

      In addition, placing a current club member on your board is often required if you want to become a public company.

  2. Re:Just like a closed company... by megamerican · · Score: 4, Interesting

    However, you can fire yourself and then go collect unemployment.

    --
    If you have something that you dont want anyone to know, maybe you shouldnt be doing it in the first place -Eric Schmidt
  3. Re:Just like a closed company... by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "At least in Canada, you don't get unemployment insurance if you quit, it's only for people who are laid off."

    "Same in the US."

    Generalizations are always a bad idea! (it's funny; think about it.)

    In Massachusetts you can quit and still collect under certain circumstances, though you may need to go for an appeal. I have done it. In my case my job responsibilities changed drastically . I explained to the appeals officer that they were trying the equivalent of demoting a lawyer to secretary and keeping the title (the new boss was afraid of technology and wanted to do all the testing manually, and I was in charge of SQA at the time). He understood that even with the same title and pay, I would still only have the experience of a secretary to show on my resume for my efforts. Case closed. I got approved via snail mail the next day !

    The best part was wiping the smile off the face of the HR moron who told me he loves to go to appeals and I don't have a chance of winning because he does it all of the time. No I take that back. The best part was explaining to one of the three lawyers that he brought with him to intimidate me that it wasn't as court of law, and he couldn't object. It's like the Visa (Mastercard?) commercial:

    Winning the case: 26 months of income if needed.
    Watching the way the lawyer was on the verge of tears of anger: priceless ! ;-)

    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun