SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 10 2017, @12:54AM
Social ownership may refer to forms of public [...] ownership
Someone went to Wikipedia and started Begging the question.
What is being described there, assuming that there is *some* sort of feedback loop where the public can influence changes to the staffing of that stewardship, is Liberal Democracy.
This has already been covered.
N.B. In SoCal, there exists The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, a public utility.
If you asked most folks in that city if Socialism was being practiced there, you will get a huge number of "NO" responses before you ever found someone who said "yes".
The main characteristic of Socialism is empowerment of The Working Class.
If a paradigm does not include -that-, it is NOT Socialism.
collective, or cooperative ownership
That's redundant.
Not only is the question being begged, the writing is sloppy.
The USSR
...was a Totalitarian gov't with a State Capitalism economic system.
Only those who have drunk the Kool Aid hold that up as an example of Socialism.
This has already been covered.
Sweden, France, Canada
Liberal Democracies.
Begging the question.
This has already been covered.
"socialist" type programs
More sloppy writing.
Quoting this crap isn't helping your case.
wealth redistribution
Liberal Democracy.
Wikipedia is occasionally useful.
In this case, not so much.
the "every man for himself" and "dog-eat-dog" philosophy of capitalism
Throw in "maximize profits at the expense of society"--as long as we're going to mention things that relate to Capitalism but DON'T define it.
Capitalism is defined by people who make money without doing labor.
Socialism is the opposite.
.
A pretty good description of what Socialism attempts to achieve is
Social and economic decisions should be made by those whom they most affect. [google.com]
The best definition I have ever seen is
the extension of democracy from politics to economics through collective ownership and workers' control of production. [google.com]
My major source is Richard D. Wolff, professor of Comparative Economics.
He has a weekly 1-hour broadcast via Pacifica Radio affiliates and there is an available 10.7 MB webcast. [kpfa.org]
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]