> What factors incentivize corporations to form into pyramids, with most of the wealth accruing on top?
Most people are incapable of managing high-level responsibilities. Those on the lower rungs assign/relinquish (depending on how you look at it) their responsibilities, and the fruits they bear, to those they perceive more capable than them. So now instead of having a smooth slope of compensation, it's top-heavy.
In layman's terms: The bulk of people who work are not motivated by the company's direct prosperity. They're motivated by other factors such as "work fulfillment," "passion", "making the world a better place", all of which don't align intrinsically with profit.
> Can we instead incentivize smaller, cooperative-style companies with more democratic managerial styles and more equitable distribution of wealth?
This is paradoxical for a few reasons. First, lead-by-many is much more inefficient than lead-by-few(usually one). See: democracy vs. democratic republic.
Second, good leaders have "ego," in the way that they have a certain modus operandi and goal they won't deviate from. Thus, if you were to populate your ranks with good leaders, it would be a shit-show. See: in-fighting nobility.
Third, incentives have always been abused. Take a look at any industry with "incentives" and subsidies. The companies are built around that subsidy, not upon being a successful business.
Corporations are already propped up by a variety of opaque laws and incentives. There's little natural or intrinsic about the way they tend to be structured. People are malleable and adaptable, and I think new social and economic structures should at least be explored to see what comes out on the other side.
I agree that centralized leadership tends to produce better products, but I don't think a more democratic company would necessarily have to put every decision to vote. Hierarchies could still emerge and responsibility could still be delegated. (Again, see Valve.) But I think distributing power, reward, and responsibility more equally throughout the company would be massively beneficial in terms of "social good".
>Hierarchies could still emerge and responsibility could still be delegated. (Again, see Valve.)
Valve is a very small, very selective company, which rarely produces new products. Despite all the overtures about freedom, there is still a central point of control that can and will put the kibosh on things if they're not going the way they want.
People have a psychological need for authorities. If you don't give them any, they will make their own out of the nearest willing "charismatic" person, who will emerge as a de-facto authority. An explicit structure is better than mob rule.
I don't think anyone believes wealth inequality is not a problem, but I don't think non-hierarchical structures are going to do anything to solve it.
> But I think distributing power, reward, and responsibility more equally throughout the company would be massively beneficial in terms of "social good".
I agree with you, but will the people?
History has shown that people just don't care about doing hard things themselves.
Most people are incapable of managing high-level responsibilities. Those on the lower rungs assign/relinquish (depending on how you look at it) their responsibilities, and the fruits they bear, to those they perceive more capable than them. So now instead of having a smooth slope of compensation, it's top-heavy.
In layman's terms: The bulk of people who work are not motivated by the company's direct prosperity. They're motivated by other factors such as "work fulfillment," "passion", "making the world a better place", all of which don't align intrinsically with profit.
> Can we instead incentivize smaller, cooperative-style companies with more democratic managerial styles and more equitable distribution of wealth?
This is paradoxical for a few reasons. First, lead-by-many is much more inefficient than lead-by-few(usually one). See: democracy vs. democratic republic.
Second, good leaders have "ego," in the way that they have a certain modus operandi and goal they won't deviate from. Thus, if you were to populate your ranks with good leaders, it would be a shit-show. See: in-fighting nobility.
Third, incentives have always been abused. Take a look at any industry with "incentives" and subsidies. The companies are built around that subsidy, not upon being a successful business.