>>16620821>>16622183>I wonder what "cracks" means exactly>'cause it could be anything reallyI agree it is really ambiguous, so I want to stress that what I'm about to say is equally speculative, but also rooted in some logic and experience.
I have owned a business for a decade, and so when I see Cover (as an entity) acting against its talents (as a collective) my mind goes to my own experiences dealing with "collective action by employees", for lack of a better term. The reason that Cover was not in favor of any official push to make the KanaCoco apartment into a larger "HoloHouse" always struck me as an obvious risk-aversion play. Any business should do the same.
What if a quarter of your moneymaking talents went to live together, and then a fight broke out, or some factionalism arose? I had this happen once with 3 young employees who moved into an apartment together (total company headcount at the time was around 30). It is ugly, and there is some expectation that it is none of your business (as a manager/leader/owner). However, when it is impacting employee's ability to work together, it is undeniably something you have to deal with, expectations or not. Or more specifically: the aggressor parties feel like it is none of your business, whereas the aggrieved parties feel like you should help them somehow in their personal situation (because it is affecting their work output). It fucking sucks for everyone, so better that it can never happen in the first place!
Same goes for too many talents being too "tight-knit".
Cover benefits from their talents being friends, but not so unquestionably united that they can't deal with them individually when need be. I would expect that Cover has a delicate balance to walk between keeping talents happy with each other, but not so coordinated that they could all unite and walk out if they chose. What would cause that? Doesn't matter. As a business leader it is your job to make sure that it isn't possible in the first place.
I am not saying that this kind of conniving, exploitative mindset is morally good. I am only saying that it is natural. Any time you negotiate with one employee thinking you are doing something "individual" with them, it is never individual. They will always talk (which is fine) and so any choice with one should be made with the expectation that it might become widespread policy. Some businesses do not do this, and at best it doesn't matter immediately, but it becomes a ticking time-bomb.
Again I have NO EXPECTATION that this is exactly what Aqua meant. This is just my broad thoughts (as a business owner) of what would be on my mind if I were in leadership at Cover: How loyal your employees are to each other, versus how loyal to you (or dependent on you), is something you MUST actively manage for the sake of business continuity.
Owning a business turns you into a corporate shithead, even if you never wanted to be.
