Hacker News Reader

Comment by iinnPP | Hacker News Reader

It's odd reading this because none of it is surprising. Despite never working there and doing absolutely nothing to research the culture. It's obvious because it is everywhere, every company and government is so risk adverse as to be useless. Why? That I have pondered significantly.

My current thought process leads to virtual organizations formed using the existing employees as members of a virtualized democratic business. The CEO is voted in, the employee is the citizen, the managers are voted in.

I believe it would be different than the government we have because the government we have is possibly too large to function as it did closer to founding. For example, Walmart has more employees than the USA had people when the USA was founded.

View on HN

Companies are not democracies, and companies that are democracies do not work at scale. Google is struggling precisely _because_ there is "too much democracy" and not enough leadership.

In a democracy it's not important to have happy customers, or ship product, as long as internally everyone is popular. So we spend all our time doing politics and getting nothing done.

>> It's obvious because it is everywhere, every company and government is so risk adverse as to be useless.

clearly this is not true - there are plenty of companies, and startups, that are very much not risk adverse. Large companies become risk adverse because bad outcomes affect huge numbers of people.

Are you saying co-ops don’t work? Mondragon is “at scale”. The US is failing at [affordable] health care compared to a country like Cuba. Worker unions are closer to democracies and work well too.

Thanks for that. I didn't know about Mondragon, but given the size it's a subject I am now very interested in.

I’m still interested too. If you find anything solid on it, let me know if you can, email is in bio :).

I was told about it by a European but otherwise have not heard of big worker coops without looking for lists.

This coop is bigger than any organized crime like Yakuza. The town where it was founded in is entirely resident owned. I can’t go anywhere in the US without there being corporate landlords.

Mondragon is gigantic. ~200,000 people in cooperatives in 30+ countries. It produces almost everything. It spawns cooperatives in other countries and it also helps new cooperatives to come to being.

https://www.commondreams.org/views/2012/06/25/yes-there-alte...

"Every company" was definitely poor wording, a seemingly qualifier should be there.

Perhaps democracy is a poor word as well?

My thinking is on changing the hierarchy in a way that results in positive impacts to productivity, innovation, and employee satisfaction. Perhaps in a way similar to the formation of the USA.

The top down method currently used seems to have a rather negative impact. It is still a popularity contest, the only difference I see is where that contest is focused.

Is the preference not to want to work and make things better? Is that gone? Is the new model do what you're told and find another 10% effort job or five? Possibly. Maybe people like that, maybe they don't.

Though I prefer in life to look at potential solutions than at problems. I realize that's not normal

> It is still a popularity contest

The point of the focus on bottom line profits is because it cannot be gamed like a popularity contest.

Banks would never add money, or subtract money, from a bank account just because of someone's fame or popularity, so they serve as the neutral arbiter.

It can of course be gamed in other ways such as prioritizing quaterly profits by neglecting longer term potential.

> Google is struggling precisely _because_ there is "too much democracy" and not enough leadership.

As an example, if Google had stronger product leadership, they would have one messaging/chat strategy instead of a dozen competing chat apps. Other Google products would integrate with and enrich that one messaging solution, providing more value for users and creating a Google suite that is more useful than the sum of its parts.

Is Google struggling, though? I think only in comparison to a particular set of expectations or aspirations that people have for it, right? Personally I share those aspirations for Google - which I believe is still one of the shining lights of our industry in my working lifetime - but there is nothing fundamentally wrong with large risk-averse stable businesses.

The author of this article clearly prefers the excitement and constant breakneck forward momentum of startups - and that's fair enough for him! - but that doesn't imply it is the objective ideal way for a company to be.

The issue is exactly that Google is not struggling, which allows for this culture to grow and thrive. One day though, the music stops.

> Is Google struggling, though?

It depends on what you're measuring. I think Google is struggling to produce and maintain quality products. They don't seem to be struggling in terms of producing revenue.

This doesn't necessarily track, many of Google's greatest mistakes can be directly traced to "too much leadership", G+ being the prime example.

> Google is struggling precisely _because_ there is "too much democracy" and not enough leadership.

I don't see any real evidence that this is the case. I think it has more to do with Google being an enormous corporation than anything else.

Sounds like you’d be interested in a co-op!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com