If I ever end up calling the shots in a company (which is unlikely, because I'm +3 sigma of anti-authoritarian) I would make it a place where people would gener

If I ever end up calling the shots in a company (which is unlikely, because I'm +3 sigma of anti-authoritarian) I would make it a place where people would generally rather implement their ideas there (with the resources and people available) than on their own. Of course, they'd be free to do either one. But I'd try to create an open-allocation environment where people would rather go to work and build something with the great people there and capture a smaller percentage of the gross profits, than go off on their own but have to corral resources and people all over again. If I'm not providing synergy and making them more productive/effective per unit of effort than they would be on their own, then I'm failing and they have right to leave (and should). Employment has multiple equilibria, I believe. You can invest almost nothing in employee career advancement, and then they (metaphorically) take whatever isn't nailed down. (I'm not saying they're unethical, but that they focus solely on their advancement because no one else will, and will spend 6+ hours per day on side projects or Coursera if they can. I'm the same way, so I'm ethically OK with this.) Or you can invest a lot of their careers and, yes, some of them will take what they learn from you and go off and do other things-- that's a good thing, because not everyone is built to stay at the same company for 30 years-- but the people who stay are likely to pay you back multiply.