What Is the 'Will' System - and Why Does It Matter?
Imagine a company where every internal transaction carries a price tag, from booking a meeting room to asking a colleague for help. This is reality at Disco Corp, a Japanese semiconductor equipment maker that implemented a radical internal economy called “Will.” In this system, employees choose their own tasks, “bill” each other for services, and get paid in an internal currency (appropriately named Will) that converts to real money as a bonus every quarter. Essentially, each employee operates like an independent business owner within the company.
Under the Will system, teams and individuals trade services in a company-wide marketplace. For example, a sales team pays factory workers (in Will currency) to produce an order; those factory workers pay engineers (in Will) to design a new product. Even resources like conference rooms, desks, or a spot in the office are “priced” in Will. When a sale is finally made to an external customer, the Will flows back through all contributors in the chain. At quarter’s end, employees with surplus Will see it converted to Yen as a bonus payout. Conversely, inefficient behaviour, like hoarding inventory or logging unnecessary overtime, incurs Will penalties, nudging people away from wasteful habits.
Why does this matter? Because Disco’s experiment has delivered striking results. The company’s operating profit margins nearly doubled after introducing Will, from about 16% to 26% in eight years, and continued climbing to the mid-30s in recent years. Its share price quadrupled during the first years of the system. Disco now boasts a dominant position (over 70% global market share in its niche) and has even been recognised as an ideal workplace in Japan. In short, the Will system appears to have aligned employees’ efforts with company performance in a powerful way, eliminating waste and boosting innovation. No wonder dozens of other organisations have knocked on Disco’s door to learn from this “free-market” approach to management.
Yet, tellingly, none of those other companies have copied the blueprint so far. That paradox, great results at Disco, but hesitation elsewhere, makes the Will system a fascinating case study. Is it a glimpse of the future of work, or an extreme outlier? As Irish and multinational businesses look for new ways to empower teams and drive efficiency, Disco’s story offers both inspiration and caution. It forces us to ask: What happens when you run a company with no bosses, no fixed roles, and an internal market economy instead? The sections below explore this question from multiple angles, freedom vs. control, personality impacts, diversity, culture fit, and even the digital tools that make such a system possible, all with an eye on what it could mean in an Irish business context.
Autonomy Unleashed or Control Rebranded?
One of the biggest selling points of Disco’s Will system is autonomy. The company deliberately created what its program designer, Toshio Naito, calls “a free economic zone, just like what exists outside the company”. “Work should be about freedom, not orders,” Naito proclaims. Indeed, Disco employees have enormous latitude to decide what to work on and with whom. There are daily auctions of work assignments where team members bid on tasks they want to tackle. There’s even an internal idea tournament, nicknamed the “Colosseum”, where any employee can pitch a profit-boosting idea to an audience of peers and executives, who then bet Will currency on the best proposals. In this gladiator-like forum, the crowd’s verdict determines which ideas move forward, not a boss’s decree. By design, hierarchy takes a back seat to a more democratic, market-driven allocation of work.
On the surface, it sounds like autonomy unleashed. Employees effectively act as freelancers within the company, free to seek out projects that interest them or even invest their Will in ideas they believe in (Disco has an internal crowdfunding platform for new business ideas). Traditional managers don’t “assign” tasks in the usual sense; instead, managers propose tasks with a budget of Will, and employees choose whether to bid on them. If a manager is ineffective or the project unappealing, people can literally walk away: “workers are free to move to other teams”, leaving bad bosses without staff. This dynamic flips the typical power balance and ostensibly hands control to individual employees.
But is this true freedom or simply control rebranded? It’s a bit of both. Instead of being micromanaged by a human boss, employees at Disco are managed by an invisible hand of economic incentives. As Naito explains, “Economic forces are doing all the things managers used to spend time on.” In other words, the company’s rules and internal market mechanisms guide behaviour in place of direct supervision. If you want a conference room for a meeting, you “feel the pain” of paying 100 Will (about $100) per hour, which discourages frivolous meetings: “People really cut back on useless meetings,” one employee observes approvingly. If you work overtime, you incur a Will penalty, which nudges you to go home on time. The autonomy is real, but it operates within a tight web of incentives and peer feedback. Essentially, Disco coded the priorities of management into a game. It's “extreme gamification at work – creative but scary,” as one commentator put it, noting that moderation is key in such an approach.
Western parallels bear out the double-edged nature of radical autonomy. Online retailer Zappos famously eliminated traditional managers in favour of Holacracy, a self-management system. The result was “a radical experiment…to end the office workplace as we know it,” but also a lot of confusion; some employees “weren’t sure how to get things done anymore” without clear authority. Many opted to leave rather than live in that boss-less new world, and Zappos had to course-correct. The lesson? Freedom without clarity can be chaos. Similarly, Disco’s internal market provides structure through algorithms, it gives clarity on the value of actions (in currency terms), even as it frees people from direct orders. It’s a different flavour of control: more quantitative, perhaps more merit-based, but control nonetheless. Every system has rules; Disco’s rules just happen to be market rules.
For Irish companies, this raises an interesting question: would employees feel more empowered by such a system, or more pressured? An internal economy might liberate people from bureaucratic approvals and allow them to pursue initiatives proactively. But it could just as easily feel like a never-ending performance review, with “the market” constantly judging your every move. The balance between autonomy and alignment is critical. Disco’s approach suggests it’s possible to replace top-down control with a network of incentives, yet it requires a high degree of trust in employees’ ability to handle that freedom responsibly. Not every organisation (or workforce) may be ready to walk that tightrope.
The Personality Question: Who Thrives, Who Struggles?
A system like Will doesn’t suit everyone. At Disco, the introduction of internal free-market principles created an environment where certain personalities and work styles clearly thrive, and others struggle or even opt out. Understanding who wins and loses in this setup is important for any company considering elements of it.
Firstly, who thrives in Disco’s environment? Observers note that those who have an entrepreneurial mindset tend to excel. Employees are essentially running their own mini-businesses (of one), so people who enjoy taking initiative, competing in a friendly game for rewards, and leveraging their skills in different areas benefit the most. One Disco engineer in Hiroshima described how “it’s become like second nature” once you adapt, “being able to measure everything creates more interest and confidence” in your work. The transparency of your contributions (all scored in Will) can be highly motivating if you’re the type who likes to see tangible results and get rewarded for going the extra mile. For example, an enterprising software engineer can earn extra Will by offering coding help to another team in need. People who are proactive, multifaceted, and comfortable networking across departments take to this system like fish to water. In essence, the “free agent” personality, one that enjoys autonomy, quick feedback, and even a bit of friendly competition, is likely to thrive.
Now, who struggles or might feel alienated? It turns out some highly talented folks don’t thrive in this atmosphere. Disco saw some engineers quit because the system “detracts from their ability to focus purely on research.” These were likely people who value deep, long-term work over short-term gains. In a Will-based economy, if a project doesn’t show immediate payoff, it might get less attention, which frustrates those who are more R&D-oriented or who prefer to perfect technology away from the spotlight of daily auctions. Similarly, individuals who dislike constant competition or self-promotion may find the environment draining. One can imagine that introverts or those who simply want stability could be uncomfortable when every day feels like an open bidding war for tasks. The Bloomberg report on Disco noted that some employees were “driven away by the never-ending pressure to perform to get a bonus”. If you’re the type who just wants to do your job quietly and not think about “earning” your right to use a conference room or worrying about quarterly Will balances, this system might feel overwhelming.
Another aspect is collaboration vs individualism. In theory, Will is meant to foster collaboration you literally pay colleagues to help you, which incentivises helping each other. And indeed, there are heartening examples: a parent who wants to leave early to see their child's game can pay a teammate in Will to finish a report for them, a mutually beneficial arrangement. However, more traditionally team-oriented personalities might bristle at having to put a price on helping. Some people help colleagues because that's the culture; if it suddenly becomes a paid transaction, it could feel transactional rather than collegial. Those who thrive likely embrace a pragmatic, results-driven culture, whereas those who prefer altruistic team spirit could feel something vital has been lost.
Another aspect is collaboration vs. individualism. In theory, Will is meant to foster collaboration you literally pay colleagues to help you, which incentivises helping each other. And indeed, there are heartening examples: a parent who wants to leave early to see their child's game can pay a teammate in Will to finish a report for them, a mutually beneficial arrangement. However, more traditionally team-oriented personalities might bristle at having to put a price on helping. Some people help colleagues because that's the culture; if it suddenly becomes a paid transaction, it could feel transactional rather than collegial. Those who thrive likely embrace a pragmatic, results-driven culture, whereas those who prefer altruistic team spirit could feel something vital has been lost.
It’s also worth considering experience and seniority. A newcomer or junior employee might struggle to navigate an internal market without mentorship or guidance, they might not even know what tasks to bid for. In a conventional structure, a manager might coach them; in Disco, one must be a self-starter. Personalities that need more guidance or that take time to ramp up may need extra support in such a free-form system.
For Irish and European multinationals, this personality question is key. Our workplaces value teamwork and inclusivity, sometimes more so than overt competition. A system that inherently rewards the loudest or fastest may inadvertently sideline the quiet, steady performers. Conversely, it might elevate hidden talent that wouldn’t shine in a rigid hierarchy. Before importing any aspect of Will, leaders should ask: Do our people have the appetite for this level of self-direction? And how do we ensure we don’t lose those great employees who thrive under more structured or collaborative settings? A balance might be needed, e.g., voluntary pilot programs or hybrid models, to accommodate different personalities. After all, a company of only one “type” of personality isn’t ideal for diversity of thought, which brings us to the next dilemma.
