Huawei enacted its Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP) in 1987 at its establishment, and implemented it in 2003 two years after Shenzhen’s local authorities laid the rules for it.
I responded with a relevant paper that you literally quoted rough distributions from. The fact that refusing to understand the difference between average and median is the hill you chose to die on is absolutely hilarious.
You have fun because you’re a troll who isn’t actually interested in facts. If you actually cared about whether Huawei is a real cooperative that has a fair distribution of shares then you would’ve spent time researching that instead of making an ass out of yourself in this thread. Since you claim the paper I linked is somehow inadequate, I’ll link another paper that does a detailed analysis of Huawei, not just in terms of share structure but also in terms of who actually owns it in practical terms
To summarize what you took the time to copy/paste :
employees own the company
one shares = one vote
shares purchase has rules
What I’m interested in, and that I cannot find online is: “how are those shares distributed amongst employee”. I know, I sound like a broken record at this point, but so do you by missing my point entirely.
That question translate to : does 1 employees own 51% of the shares, does each employees own 0.0007% of shares or something in between.
Your title assumed an even distribution ( one employee has 0.0007% of the total shares) . Without more information that is completely misleading1
Do you understand my reasoning? Or am I trolling you too hard? I would be happy to go over some terms/sentences if they are not clear. Unfortunately I’m not an native english speaker and I sometime I communicate imperfectly.
yes the first document you linked refute the 1 persons own 51% of the shares. Nonetheless, that doesn’t invalidate a scenario where an organized minority owns 75% of the shares removing control of the company from the hands of the workers
I understand the point you keep trying to make, but it’s pretty clear from the last chart I linked in the last comment that the distribution is fairly even. My title didn’t assume an even distribution, it assumes a fair distribution.
The two studies I linked very clearly indicate that the share distribution is a factor in employee engagement and motivation. If the share distribution was highly skewed then the shares wouldn’t play a factor in employee engagement.
The second study in particular compares Huawei with ZTE that has a traditional corporate structure. If your assertion was correct then we wouldn’t see the difference between the two.
I’m not gonna continue that cyclical dialogue any longer.
There is no factual number of shares distribution amongst employee. My assumption is that as any large corporation a few makes bank and many get the crumbs and it’s as good as any.
I’m sure employees are more motivated once they own stock but that’s a process you also find in other companies structure and it’s probably a well documented incentive. However, HR is not a topic I’ve interested in.
I responded with a relevant paper that you literally quoted rough distributions from. The fact that refusing to understand the difference between average and median is the hill you chose to die on is absolutely hilarious.
The paper doesn’t provide the shares distribution amongst the worker. It provides shares distribution amongst categories of worker.
Please read my last comment in his entirety.
Which obviously provides a rough idea of the distribution.
Oh I did, it’s hilarious.
Glad you’re having fun, I have fun too.
You have fun because you’re a troll who isn’t actually interested in facts. If you actually cared about whether Huawei is a real cooperative that has a fair distribution of shares then you would’ve spent time researching that instead of making an ass out of yourself in this thread. Since you claim the paper I linked is somehow inadequate, I’ll link another paper that does a detailed analysis of Huawei, not just in terms of share structure but also in terms of who actually owns it in practical terms
https://deliverypdf.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=684088071004065000108104097080001109026012051033042091108125103074072029068074103121101122062000122051045126008098020072077071005049095084082028090122114021120108019019005046078001007013011118124066089108114093113029126081072090120093102087125085123065&EXT=pdf&INDEX=TRUE
Another paper breaks down exactly how shares work under ESOP https://www.centeronbusinessandpoverty.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/ESOP-and-Effect-on-Productivity.pdf
To summarize what you took the time to copy/paste :
What I’m interested in, and that I cannot find online is: “how are those shares distributed amongst employee”. I know, I sound like a broken record at this point, but so do you by missing my point entirely.
That question translate to : does 1 employees own 51% of the shares, does each employees own 0.0007% of shares or something in between.
Your title assumed an even distribution ( one employee has 0.0007% of the total shares) . Without more information that is completely misleading1
Do you understand my reasoning? Or am I trolling you too hard? I would be happy to go over some terms/sentences if they are not clear. Unfortunately I’m not an native english speaker and I sometime I communicate imperfectly.
I understand the point you keep trying to make, but it’s pretty clear from the last chart I linked in the last comment that the distribution is fairly even. My title didn’t assume an even distribution, it assumes a fair distribution.
The two studies I linked very clearly indicate that the share distribution is a factor in employee engagement and motivation. If the share distribution was highly skewed then the shares wouldn’t play a factor in employee engagement.
The second study in particular compares Huawei with ZTE that has a traditional corporate structure. If your assertion was correct then we wouldn’t see the difference between the two.
I’m not gonna continue that cyclical dialogue any longer.
There is no factual number of shares distribution amongst employee. My assumption is that as any large corporation a few makes bank and many get the crumbs and it’s as good as any.
I’m sure employees are more motivated once they own stock but that’s a process you also find in other companies structure and it’s probably a well documented incentive. However, HR is not a topic I’ve interested in.
Have a nice day.
Your assumption is completely baseless, but there’s clearly no point continuing this.
Have a nice day.