Governance for Open Work
Reflections after reading Incorruptible by Eric Ries
In previous posts, I’ve pondered on what form Open Work will take (ex. a technology company, an industry consortium, a nationalized industry, a regulated monopoly, a nonprofit organization), as well as how, if Open Work is to be an infrastructure service to all of the players in the labor market (employees, employers, HR platforms, and economies overall), conflicting interests between these stakeholders should be settled.
Eric Ries’ new book, Incorruptible, answered some of my old questions and raised some new ones on what governance models that will allow Open Work to both scale and sustain its ethos to add, rather than extract value, especially from workers.
As the subtitle states, Ries provides a plethora of examples of how good companies have gone bad, largely by becoming victims of their own success and prey to predator investors, as well as how great companies have stayed great, largely through intentional corporate structure that protects the mission regardless of who the founders or investors are.
If I distill all of the complex legal and compliance jargon to my one primary takeaway from the book, it is that it will be important to separate who has ownership over the economics of the company’s financial outcomes from who has control over the company’s most important operating decisions. A public benefit corporation could raise money from VCs and function like a traditional startup, but a separate organization, foundation, or trust could ensure the company stays aligned with its mission.
While much of his advice directly aligns with my values and goals, I realized that I have some unhealed scars as an educator, nonprofit leader, and small business owner and operator that make me hesitate to fully embrace all of Ries’ ideas.
Perfection for the few vs. Net positive for the many
I’ve never worked in a full-time capacity for a big company, nor for an organization that was not deeply mission driven (ex. Title 1 public schools, education nonprofits, and social impact driven enterprises). Therefore, I have only had intimate experience with wanting to do so much more good in the world, but not having the resources to do so.
I’m not convinced that the unwillingness to sacrifice on the mission is the reason why the organizations I’ve built, led, and worked for thus far did not or have not scaled as much as I hoped they would, but a stubbornness on what living out that mission looks like has certainly played a role in not maximizing their full potential.
As someone who likes to operate both at scale and close to the ground, working in these environments for the past several years has often left me frustrated, hamstringed, disillusioned, and at times, hopeless.
One version of Open Work could do 100% good and 0% harm for thousands of people, and spend all of our time trying to increase the raw number without compromising our perfect batting average, knowing it may never reach true scale.
Another version could do 90% good and 10% harm for billions of people, and spend all of our time trying to increase the raw number while getting that 10% figure as low as possible, knowing it may never reach 0%.
My hunch is that Ries would prefer that more people choose the former, but these days, I lean towards the latter.
My driving reason to start Open Work is to create economic opportunity for workers who have limited alternatives to provide a decent life for themselves and their kids; boosting business outcomes for employers and HR platforms are secondary to my focus on helping everyday people.
However, I also know that if Open Work doesn’t offer something of value to employers and HR platforms, it can’t offer the value it wants to offer to employees. The road to helping billions of workers runs through serving the needs of their bosses who can create the opportunities for them to advance, and that will mean that we need to find balance between what employees want and what employers and tech platforms want.
I’m not sure where to draw the line between doing what’s necessary to build something that’s real and matters to a lot of people versus compromising on our mission to help the more vulnerable workers in the economy.
Is doing what I see as practical and necessary mean that Open Work becomes corruptible? At some point, I’d love to chat with Ries to get his answer.