> However this is incredibly far from reality because people actually like being employees.
Really? Why don't you offer your employees equal partnership with no strings attached and see if they'd just rather stay employees. I call bullshit on this.
> Injecting this type of politics into a company is a fantastic way of slowing it to a crawl.
Not true. Taking one day a year to nominate candidates and vote is hardly a burden. It's less of a burden than any normal employee turnover process in non-democratic companies. And I'm not even talking about large bureaucratic corporations with layers of management and their constant "re-orgs".
> Besides, who says elections give us the best candidate? ;)
Elections where most people are apathetic and don't even bother to vote because they think the entire system is corrupt are a bit different from elections in a 50-people organization, where everyone knows everybody else.
> Unlike the North Korea example, the employees really do have options here.
You missed my point. If all other organizations out there were democratically governed, then you'd probably have had to put a gun to someone's head to stay.
> There are serious business consequences to injecting such a high level of politics into a company.
Again, this is untrue. You might be projecting American election process onto this and may not be aware that everywhere else election cycles don't actually last 2 years. Most normal countries don't spend more than a month on an election cycle. A small business wouldn't spend more than a day.
> What keeps me from exploiting my workers primarily are competitors, with competing potential offers, and the flow of information on the internet, e.g. 'this type of engineer makes X a year'.
I think again you're projecting your own bubble here. Fast food industry is fiercely competitive, correct? Do you think a Burger King employee would get a vastly superior competing offer from McDonald's?
Really? Why don't you offer your employees equal partnership with no strings attached and see if they'd just rather stay employees. I call bullshit on this.
> Injecting this type of politics into a company is a fantastic way of slowing it to a crawl.
Not true. Taking one day a year to nominate candidates and vote is hardly a burden. It's less of a burden than any normal employee turnover process in non-democratic companies. And I'm not even talking about large bureaucratic corporations with layers of management and their constant "re-orgs".
> Besides, who says elections give us the best candidate? ;)
Elections where most people are apathetic and don't even bother to vote because they think the entire system is corrupt are a bit different from elections in a 50-people organization, where everyone knows everybody else.
> Unlike the North Korea example, the employees really do have options here.
You missed my point. If all other organizations out there were democratically governed, then you'd probably have had to put a gun to someone's head to stay.
> There are serious business consequences to injecting such a high level of politics into a company.
Again, this is untrue. You might be projecting American election process onto this and may not be aware that everywhere else election cycles don't actually last 2 years. Most normal countries don't spend more than a month on an election cycle. A small business wouldn't spend more than a day.
> What keeps me from exploiting my workers primarily are competitors, with competing potential offers, and the flow of information on the internet, e.g. 'this type of engineer makes X a year'.
I think again you're projecting your own bubble here. Fast food industry is fiercely competitive, correct? Do you think a Burger King employee would get a vastly superior competing offer from McDonald's?