3 ms·
You could also keep the same salary for executives and share the savings across the employees.. which is probably what is being done. So sure, that makes the g
by zobzu 12y ago
You could also keep the same salary for executives and share the savings across the employees.. which is probably what is being done.
So sure, that makes the gap executives-employee seem bigger, but in reality its the same. With the advantage of a flatter hierarchy.
For I have experimented some of these, I found it way more enjoyable than having 3 to 10 bosses on top of me, where you consistently spend your time:
- covering your ass
- covering your boss asses
- discussing in meetings until another boss comes over and changes everything
- having to do whatever the manager decides if its a bad manager, even thus its against the team opinion
- discussing in meetings until the boss that isnt in your range of bosses decides a political coup (approx every 6month)
- etc.
Ie, corporate life of a low-end employee.... yeah zappo's hierachy isn't near as bad as you make it to be, in fact - and while im sure its company depend, it seems rather enjoyable.
- pinterestaway 12y agoZappos sounds pretty good to me. I work in a similar environment and I love it. There is so much joy in going to work and being your own boss and sharing in the company success. Yes, I have a manager, but my manager doesn't (can't?) tell me what to do or what to work on. My manager acts as a coach/facilitator/personal-agent instead of manager-as-god. It sounds unworkable until you work at a place that executes it well and now I can't imagine going back to a traditional corporate structure. I'm not sure what the pre-reqs to executing it well are. Probably benevolent-ruler CEOs who own enough of the company to keep anarchy from developing (e.g., Gabe @ Valve). Or at least investors who are willing to get on board.