The motivation behind Tempus Dictum, Inc.
December 6th, 2007 by geprThe techdirt entry: Noncompete Agreements Are The DRM Of Human Capital gave me a great opportunity for an appropriate first post to the Tempus Dictum (TDI) web log. The entry talks about how non-compete agreements, limiting the extent to which employees can work for their employers’ competitors, dampen the collective innovation of a geographical region or legal jurisdiction. This seems rather obvious; but the nonintuitive conclusion is that non-compete agreements hurt each employer in the long-run because it means each employer, like all the others in the jurisdiction, cannot exploit the unused resources of its competitors.
In other words, every organization is, by definition and good reason, a bureaucracy. And in every bureaucracy, there are some individuals who cannot realize their full potential because their methods or ideas are incommensurate with the infrastructure (a.k.a. mis-fits). In those cases, the bureaucracy is not only dampening the individual, it is the source of inertia to the evolution of the organization. It’s often best to set the individual free so that they might develop their ideas into a usable invention that more readily will fit into the bureaucracy. I.e. set the misfit free and be ready to use their invention to good effect.
Typically, setting the individual free means they quit and either go to work for another organization, usually in the same domain, or they start their own venture. [1] And this is where non-compete agreements come in.
With this background, it is easier to understand the foundations of TDI. Ostensibly, TDI is a custom software contracting firm. We take clients’ needs and codify solutions into software. But, this is just the banal projection of what TDI really is. What we really are is a collection of (habitual) misfits who love to work on interesting and difficult problems, regardless of where those problems arise. When one or more solutions to a problem percolates up and shows itself to be worthy of a new bureaucracy, one of us will “jump ship” and help start a new venture around that solution. Then, because we’re focussed on interesting and difficult problems, when that new venture stabilizes (or … [ahem] … dies), we hop back aboard TDI to continue the hunt.
At least that’s the vision, anyway. Ideally, by articulating such a structure and providing a supportive infrastructure for misfits, we not only facilitate our own development as the collective TDI and the individuals within, but we facilitate the creativity and progression of the groups [2] with which we engage.
[1] Intelligent organizations are finding many ways to patronize such misfits without cutting the ties entirely. I don’t really give career advice; but were I to give such advice, it would consist solely of “Don’t work for an organization that’s obviously dumber than you are.”
[2] Although the techdirt article talks specifically about the legal and regional application of non-competes, it seems clear to me that the conclusions would extrapolate to any group or domain wherein a standard set of [im|ex]plicit rules obtain, regardless of geographical proximity or legal jurisdiction. Groups that enforce within-group non-compete rules will be less innovative than groups that do not enforce such rules.
Tags: entrepreneurship, innovation, tempus dictum
December 6th, 2007 at 12:12:05
My first thought was that it’s not the mis-fits that non-compete agreement are designed for, it’s the rockstars that companies don’t want stolen away by the competition. This is an argument that is basically put forward in one of the links off the techdirt article you reference. However, after giving it some thought, there seems to be an even stronger argument for letting these coveted employees have the freedom to move within a given domain.
As an individual, if I’m a leader in some domain and I sign on with a company that hems me in with a non-compete agreement, I could essentially be blocked from working anywhere else where my particular skill set is germane. This situation could be abused by the company in that they have less incentive to keep me happy and could easily result in resentment on my part towards the company. Both of these end up hurting the domain as a whole when large numbers of individuals in the domain end up not working to their full potential.
In the end I think everyone is going to agree that competition is what drives innovation and it seems pretty obvious to me that non-compete agreements are designed to block competition.
April 10th, 2008 at 7:07:10
[...] of scale-free networks, libertarianism, and distributed problem solving. As I explained in the The Motivation behind Tempus Dictum, we are, banally and somewhat facetiously, just a collection of misfits who find greater efficacy [...]