My dad used to work a machinist job where they were paid piece rate. He thought this was great and systematically improved good own production to the point where he was making twice what most others on the shift were. They resented him and others who succeeded under piece rate pay. Eventually the company took an employee vote on eliminating piece rate pay and going hourly. The low output workers would make more with hourly pay but my dad would make much less. The hourly pay faction won the vote and my dad and others ended up on new jobs.
After all- hierarchy is not when some of the people in a room stand taller than others. That’s just natural variation. Hierarchy is when one person in the room grabs a gun and demands that everyone else kneel.
How do they reach consensus when there are conflicting opinions? Popular vote? How is majority established? Half+1? How do they keep in check the formation of factions or short term alliances that are so typical in any human group larger than 2?
While not stated in the article I'm guessing that the "masters" act as an informal leadership team tasked with overseeing the whole process. Also they hint to having a hiring process that clearly filters for culture fit, I'm sure that helps.
But the thing that probably helps the most with keeping egos and abuses in check is the fact that 50% of profits is shared with staff. It's likely that the salary differences are not that relevant if your yearly revenue tops what the market is paying for your level of experience
