I'm going to counter this a bit -- if most of your coworkers want you gone, do you want to work there? Does it make sense to continue or would staying just mean continuing a toxic relationship for all parties? I think this just formalizes the quiet grumblings of people who who think "how is x person still here, they don't carry their weight" etc.
I think a more important concern is how does an org ensure that people remain tolerant and accommodating (both in legally required ways and in ways that expand your views and ideas) of people that may not mesh perfectly? I don't think a "divorce" of the org should be frowned upon and I think many orgs ought to codify how they sever to account for the possibility that people don't agree. I don't, however, believe that it's good to avoid conflict and sever every org over every meaningless spat.
> I'm going to counter this a bit -- if most of your coworkers want you gone, do you want to work there?
There are two things here, "competent", and "nice to work with". I've met co-workers that are perfectly nice people, I thought they do shit work but I wasn't the one paying them so I didn't really cared if they stayed working. Yeah they are negative for the company but I personally don't care, more than that, working with pleasant people is worth more to me than company being that 0.5% more efficient by not employing them.
That does shit a bit in coop as your share in profit grows when someone bad at the job gets fired.
> I think a more important concern is how does an org ensure that people remain tolerant and accommodating (both in legally required ways and in ways that expand your views and ideas) of people that may not mesh perfectly? I don't think a "divorce" of the org should be frowned upon and I think many orgs ought to codify how they sever to account for the possibility that people don't agree. I don't, however, believe that it's good to avoid conflict and sever every org over every meaningless spat.
Yeah I can imagine that being even harder the more interconnected the org structure is, people are naturally tribal
So, I think your first point is something that still works with coops, but you have more ownership, so you have a greater say in whether or not somebody pleasant stays or somebody efficient stays. I think either are possible outcomes in coops depending on who is there.
For your second point, maybe that's okay? I think you're right with the tribal nature of people -- so if teams disagree, maybe the org isn't healthy and it's time to form two healthy orgs as part of a codified severance that doesn't result in layoffs or bankruptcy. I think the reason they don't is its expensive and difficult because you have to hire lawyers to figure it out after something is wrong. If tribes are mature enough to disagree and coexist, I'd call that healthy and worthy of continuing if both sides value each other.
I'm not sure many orgs codify severance. Typically this is something that partnerships account for but not corporations - corporations just fire people.
True, but coops are also more selective about firing and hiring. So if you're a bad fit, you're less likely to end up in a coop, and if you do end up there, you will have more stable employment because coops generally don't fire people during crises, they collectively cut their salaries by a certain percentage, or give up yearly bonuses, and when things get good again, they reinstate their old salaries or bonuses.
I think a more important concern is how does an org ensure that people remain tolerant and accommodating (both in legally required ways and in ways that expand your views and ideas) of people that may not mesh perfectly? I don't think a "divorce" of the org should be frowned upon and I think many orgs ought to codify how they sever to account for the possibility that people don't agree. I don't, however, believe that it's good to avoid conflict and sever every org over every meaningless spat.