Just came into this thought after talking to a friend who actually set up a company with a bunch of young friends whom he claimed each have their own expertise. And his role is to coordinate and "integrate" all these scattered resources and profits will be shared equally among each other. Currently he is in the midst of meeting with all partners on business decisions to make.
I am quite skeptical on this move despite having to admit that it was a bold move to start our very own company. But how can the young ones who just graduated and joined a MLM company be possible to develop skills of specialty except communication skills? Without experience in each different workforce area, how can a bunch of friends with 'different specialties' be able to contribute solid ideas and workforce to a newly set up company?
In one of an organisation theory, one of a major problems in managing an organisation is 'control and coordination' of scarce resources. It is widely assumed that perfect control and coordination would be able to achieve with perfect information. To manage an organisation efficiently and effectively, information is the key to success. Just as what the old adage said, "information is power". Or, another version by Abell, a pro-economist author of UOL study guide, "asymmetric information confers power".
Ok, let's come back to the point. I was just trying to reiterate what i've read to recap my memory so that it won't rot in my brain. My point is, in practical, it is literally impossible to achieve perfect information, therefore there is no 'perfect control and coordination'. However, you can close the gap by bringing in more relevant information to the decision maker in organisation. The way to bring in more information is "information communication & technology" (ICT). And to make it a relevant piece of information, you need some wisdom to filter the information and correlate with the problem that you'd want to solve. ICT is the way to drive the information flow and keeps an organisation rejuvenated with relevant information, actively engage with the environment for transactions, and transforming one to become a truly open system! Of course, human plays an important part in this driving process and I'm not going to talk about that right now.
So, my bottom line is, my friend can be better off if he has more resources especially on getting the right people to do right jobs. And if everyone in the company receive equal payout, how to justify one contributes more than the other and is worth paying more? You do not really think that everyone contribute same effort to the company don't you? Of course, if your company is formed by a group of collectivists, that is a different story. However, a collectivist group tries to earn a living in society that dominates by rational capitalists and economists, I doubt if the bond among partners will sustain in long run.
