2 ms·
I think this point of view is biased from the perspective of an entrepeneur. You seem to be over-valuing the contribution of the founders, to the point where yo
by drjesusphd 13y ago
I think this point of view is biased from the perspective of an entrepeneur. You seem to be over-valuing the contribution of the founders, to the point where you're implying that everything that happens after the founder leaves the picture is all his/her doing.
Would you make a similar analogy of nation-states? The Catholic Church?
- learc83 13y agoI'm sorry, I should have made my point more clear. The gist of what I'm saying is that if you treat people like machines, they act like machines. If your organization is setup as a strict hierarchy with zero autonomy, it will function as a giant machine, only kept going by the person/people controlling it. They alternative to this is to maximize autonomy for all your employees. Allow your people to be people. There is an innate human desire to create, to organize, to make an impact, to move from chaos to order--to fight entropy. Harnessing that desire is, in my opinion, the best way to run a company. I'll give you an example. A McDonald's employee isn't happy with his job, but one day he decides to make the best of it and just do the best job he can. He walks into work intent on making the best damn hamburger he can make. But then he realizes...he can't do that. His job isn't to make the best hamburger he can make, it's to make the exact same hamburger made by every other employee at every other McDonald's. In this case what we've done is to take a human and do our best to turn him into a robot.