You sound heavy handed and mercurial. If you introduced even two of those practices into an existing organization you face significant risk of open rebellion. A looser hand can get better results.

Specific issues:
#1: More than half the company will quit. Many employees will prefer security to opportunity. That said, most companies could use employees with more of an equity stake.

#2: Requires discipline and good records. The details of who can get the extra compensation can get complicated. For example a naive approach of each department gets X $ to distribute based on merits according to the will of the manager can backfire if one department has many great employees and another has mostly dogs.

#3: Mostly agree. A high quality team is critical to getting quality work done. Maintaining hiring standards can get difficult as an org gets larger. Also the concept of a 'good hire' is often dependent on the nature of the manager and the org. That said, it takes a lot of work to develop hiring standards and to find the great candidates.

#4: You will quickly find that these roles intersect with multiple existing roles. This is an interesting idea but is unproven to me.

#5: Ripe for rebellion. Why 'require'? I'd be thrilled to work at a place that even provides the option. I have yet to have worked at a company that even provides the option or subsidizes membership to any gym.

#6: Again, encouraging this rather than requiring it will get better results. For example you could instead have (1) a charitable matching program, (2) internal newsletter crowing about employee community service, (3) sponsor a few community events and encourage employees to participate (& allow time spent helping to count as worked time)

#7: There is value in having a local employee and there is a cost in having employees located far away (especially if they are in different timezones). These are not insurmountable but will be a defining aspect of company culture. I know of a few orgs that do have lots of remote employees (such as wordpress). As someone who is currently a remote employee (more by circumstances than by choice) I can tell you that it does not suit everyone.

#8: Congratulations. You no longer can meet with any tech who is "on call" to support any system. You also can no longer meet with sales folks who may need to take important calls from clients. Again, a flexible culture that *allows* for phones/PDAs/computers in meetings but discourages it unless necessary seems better to me. I personally cannot remember attending a meeting that was significantly disrupted by any of the technologies that you mentioned where it was not necessary.

#9: This rule is so general and fuzzy that I don't have a grip on what it really means.

#10: I don't believe the "proof" unless I am shown the evidence. (link please?) Instinctively this seems equivalent requiring that half the board be Caucasian/Jewish/black/Indian/amputees/etc... Choose people based upon their merits.

#11: (the email one day a week rule) Utterly disruptive and probably suicidal to the business. Many jobs require frequent use of email to be done effectively. This is especially true when remote employees are involved.

All About Voting: thanks for your comment. You asked for the link on the proof regarding women on the board of directors, well here it is:

http://www.sacramentoexecutive.com/sacwomen/2007/10/mens_rooms.html

Pierre Cutler