[davidjfelix]

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.