> but the myth of Huawei’s employee ownership seems to persist outside of China.
Never heard of it, never thought about it, not sure why proving/disproving this is in the author's interest.
The main curiosity regarding what the structure of Huawei actually is would be interesting, edge of my seat for that one. But who cares about the employees, who would ever believe that it would be anything other than corporate speak? I would basically assume that because a shareholder who happens to be employed there at some point in time, that the company would make that assertion just to make people feel good. The profit sharing scheme the abstract suggests is good enough to align incentives and make the non-capital class feel like they "own" something. It is so improbable that a labor class is also a capital class that I would be more surprised to see a paper showing how it was true, and it would be from Harvard Business School and not randomly uploaded to SSRN.
Never heard of it, never thought about it, not sure why proving/disproving this is in the author's interest.
The main curiosity regarding what the structure of Huawei actually is would be interesting, edge of my seat for that one. But who cares about the employees, who would ever believe that it would be anything other than corporate speak? I would basically assume that because a shareholder who happens to be employed there at some point in time, that the company would make that assertion just to make people feel good. The profit sharing scheme the abstract suggests is good enough to align incentives and make the non-capital class feel like they "own" something. It is so improbable that a labor class is also a capital class that I would be more surprised to see a paper showing how it was true, and it would be from Harvard Business School and not randomly uploaded to SSRN.