I think it's a perfectly valid choice but I don't think it's quite as binary as the author puts it.
I've been in agencies, in bloated product companies and they were all terrible experiences.
I did some freelancing and enjoyed it, but I could make significantly more money with less effort contracting.
I liked my solo contracting days albeit they quickly resembled little employments.
But when I run my own company or when I worked in some startups with enlightened leadership, it was great.
I think you can absolutely create an agency (or a product company) where a work pattern like yours is acceptable and where people can work flexibly and be happy about it. I used to work in one of the few remote first company before COVID and everyone loved working there because of it. Async as much as possible is crucial.
If you're worried about people not putting their 100% because they're employed and not making more money the more value gets created, you can setup a structure with low base pay + amazing bonus on success and you can get the same incentive (and risk) you have in your solo work - but with friends and scaling up your business into something that can make more money.
It's easier to have large margin as an agency than as a solo grifter.
> If you're worried about people not putting their 100% because they're employed and not making more money the more value gets created, you can setup a structure with low base pay + amazing bonus on success and you can get the same incentive (and risk) you have in your solo work -
I think more jobs should be structured this way
BUT
it also needs strong checks to catch and _fire_ folks who upsell/ oversell/ overcharge against the customers' interests.
This is a risk with any quota (minimum) system but there are a relative handful of folks who will abuse a reward structure to the maximum potential, raking in tons of money for the company (and themselves) while slowly damaging the reputation of the company.
So, we need good incentives and rewards coupled with harsh penalties for dishonesty and abuse. IME, companies are often much better at the former than the latter.
I've been in agencies, in bloated product companies and they were all terrible experiences.
I did some freelancing and enjoyed it, but I could make significantly more money with less effort contracting. I liked my solo contracting days albeit they quickly resembled little employments.
But when I run my own company or when I worked in some startups with enlightened leadership, it was great.
I think you can absolutely create an agency (or a product company) where a work pattern like yours is acceptable and where people can work flexibly and be happy about it. I used to work in one of the few remote first company before COVID and everyone loved working there because of it. Async as much as possible is crucial.
If you're worried about people not putting their 100% because they're employed and not making more money the more value gets created, you can setup a structure with low base pay + amazing bonus on success and you can get the same incentive (and risk) you have in your solo work - but with friends and scaling up your business into something that can make more money.
It's easier to have large margin as an agency than as a solo grifter.