A ship (or fleet of ships) on a voyage of discovery goes thousands of miles away from any court or police presence or indeed from any prospective allies or enemies who even speak the same language as the people on the ship.
That single strategic factor makes stories of mutinies dramatically interesting, but it also leaves me puzzled (even after reading the article at hbr.org) as to why the author of the article at hbr.org expects his book or his article to shed much light on situations in which all parties have recourse at any time to a judical system with a strong centuries-old commitment to the preservation of the rights of property and its duly appointed "agents" (i.e., the managers of the corporation).
ADDED. Well, yeah, for a group of employees with a bad boss to go over the boss's head to try to get the boss removed has some resemblance to a mutiny on a ship, but why rely on this rather tenuous connection between mutinies on wooden ships and "modern employee mutinies"? Why not directly study cases when in this day and age employees tried to get their boss removed? Because reading about mutinies on wooden ships is more fun? Because it makes for drama that can be converted into page views?
ADDED. Another huge difference is that for an employee to leave the ship during the voyage means being stranded 1000s of miles from civilization, which is a much bigger deal than walking away from unvested options or the chance of a pension.
Exactly! Complaining to the boss's boss is a very different process than slitting the captain's throat in the middle of the night and throwing him overboard. I'm not sure how one sheds any light on the other.
sounds like you need to read the book. history will teach you many lessons. In old seafaring ventures AND in modern firms leaders undertake actions that violate shared values. in the historic cases the values are more basic (safety, food) to the human condition than they are in firms today (socialization, esteem). Mutinies on historic age of discovery ventures were extremely sophisticated and subtle and the physical environment brought it all down to basic human social dynamics. why not look at firms today? try it. (a) firms are all different from one another and you can't compare cases - the ships were suitable similar. (b) can't get reliable data - people today will lie to you because they are biased, whereas on the ships the primary account journals are richer and more objective. finally, citing the judicial system strains credulity as there is so much members can do to depose leaders with it completely under the radar.
That single strategic factor makes stories of mutinies dramatically interesting, but it also leaves me puzzled (even after reading the article at hbr.org) as to why the author of the article at hbr.org expects his book or his article to shed much light on situations in which all parties have recourse at any time to a judical system with a strong centuries-old commitment to the preservation of the rights of property and its duly appointed "agents" (i.e., the managers of the corporation).
ADDED. Well, yeah, for a group of employees with a bad boss to go over the boss's head to try to get the boss removed has some resemblance to a mutiny on a ship, but why rely on this rather tenuous connection between mutinies on wooden ships and "modern employee mutinies"? Why not directly study cases when in this day and age employees tried to get their boss removed? Because reading about mutinies on wooden ships is more fun? Because it makes for drama that can be converted into page views?
ADDED. Another huge difference is that for an employee to leave the ship during the voyage means being stranded 1000s of miles from civilization, which is a much bigger deal than walking away from unvested options or the chance of a pension.