Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 14 submissions in the queue.
posted by on Wednesday March 08 2017, @10:22PM   Printer-friendly
from the socialism-at-work dept.

BBC reports

Do you really need someone to tell you what to do at work? Three years ago, Swedish software consultancy Crisp decided that the answer was no.

The firm, which has about 40 staff, had already trialled various organisational structures, including the more common practice of having a single leader running the company. Crisp then tried changing its chief executive annually, based on a staff vote, but eventually decided collectively that no boss was needed.

Yassal Sundman, a developer at the firm, explains: "We said, 'what if we had nobody as our next CEO--what would that look like?' And then we went through an exercise and listed down the things that the CEO does."

The staff decided that many of the chief executive's responsibilities overlapped with those of the board, while other roles could be shared among other employees. "When we looked at it we had nothing left in the CEO column, and we said, 'all right, why don't we try it out?'" says Ms Sundman.

Because they are all in charge, workers are more motivated, [says Henrik Kniberg, an organisational coach at the firm]. Crisp regularly measures staff satisfaction, and the average is about 4.1 out of five.

Last March, VentureBeat said

Crisp, a boutique consultancy company in Sweden, is made up of approximately 30 people, but none of them are truly "employees". They have zero managers; not even a CEO. Decisions are made through consensus, and instead of relying on some manager to allocate tasks, Crisp developed its own protocol detailing the chain of responsibilities when a new task appears.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 09 2017, @01:26AM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 09 2017, @01:26AM (#476814)

    The original, as submitted, was simply from the socialism dept.

    The fundamental unit of Socialism is the worker-owned cooperative (or even the worker-owner).

    If you have gov't ownership of stuff, you -may- have Liberal Democracy or you -may- have State Capitalism or you -may- have Despotism.
    If you don't have worker empowerment in the workplace, however, what you have is NOT Socialism.
    Socialism is DEMOCRACY EVERYWHERE.

    -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by snufu on Thursday March 09 2017, @07:10PM (1 child)

    by snufu (5855) on Thursday March 09 2017, @07:10PM (#477079)

    I find your anti-capitalist ideas intriguing and would like to subscribe to your newsletter and or blog. Please send your name, address, social security number, and a description of your typical travel patterns to DefinitelyNotTheFBI@fbi.gov.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 09 2017, @08:39PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 09 2017, @08:39PM (#477114)

      8-)   It strikes me as odd how folks here and elsewhere refer to "The Left" WRT non-Republicans when the people to which they are referring have not rejected Capitalism. [politicalcompass.org]
      N.B. Neither Nader nor Kucinich have rejected Capitalism either; as such, that chart has been artificially skewed to the "Left".

      The Red Purge a century ago and McCarthyism after WWII pretty much extinguished actual Leftism in USA.

      In the 2016 elections, Bernie paid some lip service to worker-owned cooperatives.
      He also said in no uncertain terms that he was against gov't ownership of the means of production.
      ...this while calling himself a "democratic socialist".
      (Even if it was true in his case, that terminology is redundant; Socialism relies on Democracy to work.)

      The Green Party USA also put a tiny thing into their 2016 platform endorsing the notion of worker-owned cooperatives.
      That bunch is another that doesn't seem to be too keen on the notion of gov't ownership of the means of production.

      ...and, heh, in 1987, even Ronnie Raygun paid lip service to the notion of ownership by the workers [google.com]--though he just couldn't break from his actual ideology and he still called them "employees".

      The approval rate of the idea of having a "Socialist" president gained a lot of traction in the recent election cycle.
      People may not know exactly what it is, but they know that they're not too jazzed about Capitalism and the way that that is working out for them. [google.com]

      -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]