Self-Governing Online Worker Communities

Carl Bialik from the WSJ writes "Oil-services company Schlumberger is doing something unusual for a big corporation: fostering the creation of online groups of employees with similar interests and allowing these communities to govern themselves and choose their leaders. Wall Street Journal columnist David Wessel talks to John Afilaka, a geological engineer who was elected to lead the company's rock-characterization community. 'Mr. Afilaka campaigned to increase technical professionals' influence on top management's research-and-development priorities and to forge better links among various communities. He claims progress on both.' Richard McDermott, a consultant, tells Wessel such a management structure is unusual: 'People...see it as a real democratic institution in what is otherwise an authoritarian institution, a business.' Wessel notes: 'Other companies, apparently, are scared of that.'"

Comments

mine too

[jafac]

My company, , is also doing this - establishing "communities of interest".

I figure, they'd rather I spent my time blogging with other employees than jerks like you. :)

Re:mine too

[Anonymous Coward]

well we think they're jerks too.

Re:mine too

[Sentri]

What it comes down to is companies have finally realised "People need friends" Im not suprised it took them so long Perhaps this is the beginning of the end of the cube farm *laughs sarcastically* Or perhaps it is just a waste of time?

Makes sense.

[Limburgher]

If you give the employees not only tools to effect real positive change but also a sense of ownership, some say in operations and a voice of some type, they'll work harder, do better work, and stick around. Why isn't this common knowledge? I've been workplaces where this was the M.O., and it was great.

Re:Makes sense.

[iminplaya]

It is common knowledge. It just isn't common practice. We tend to default towards the authoritarian way of doing things. The desire for power over others is very strong indeed. It's good to see some people actually evolving away from that.

Re:Makes sense.

[Anonymous Coward]

I get this all the time. The answer? Borrowing from the Anarchist Theory FAQ (and revising it to apply to this concern), which is strangely relevant to this topic:

Some have argued that if workers had the genuine option to work for a capitalist employer, or else work for themselves in a worker cooperative, virtually all workers would choose the latter. Moreover, workers in a worker-managed firm would have higher morale and greater incentive to work hard compared with workers who just worked for the benefit of their employer. Hence, capitalists would be unable to pay their workers wages competitive with the wages of the labor-managed firm, and by force of competition would gradually vanish.

However, the the argument can work in precisely the opposite direction. For what is a worker-owned firm if not a firm in which the workers jointly hold all of the stock? Now this is a peculiarly irrational portfolio to hold, because it means that workers would, in effect, put all their eggs in one basket; if their firm does well, they grow rich, but if their firm goes bankrupt, they lose everything. It would make much more sense for workers to exchange their shares in their own firm to buy shares in other firms in order to insure themselves against risk. Thus, the probable result of worker-owned firms with negotiable shares would be that workers would readily and advantageously sell off most of their shares in their own firm in order to diversify their portfolios. The end result is likely to be the standard form of capitalist organization, in which workers receive a fixed payment for their services and the owners of the firms' shares earn the variable profits. Of course, alienation of shares could be banned, but this appears to do nothing except force workers to live with enormous financial risk. None of this shows that worker-owned firms could not persist if the workers were so ideologically committed to worker control that their greater productivity outweighed the riskiness of the workers' situation; but many doubt very much that such intense ideology would prevail in more than a small portion of the population. Indeed, they expect that the egalitarian norms and security from dismissal that co-op proponents typically favor would grossly undermine everyone's incentive to work hard and kill abler workers' desire for advancement.

Some go further and argue that inequality would swiftly re-emerge in an co-op based economy. Workers would treat their jobs as a sort of property right, and would refuse to hire new workers on equal terms because doing so would dilute the current workers' shares in the firm's profits. The probable result would be that an elite class of workers in capital-intensive firms would exploit new entrants into the work force much as capitalists allegedly do today. As evidence, they point to existing "worker-controlled" firms such as law firms -- normally they consist of two tiers of workers, one of which both works and owns the firm ("the partners"), while the remainder are simply employees ("the associates" as well as the secretaries, clerks, etc.)

Re:Sort of like digg.com vs. slashdot

[Fyre2012]

CowboyNeal picked this story, not CmdrTaco
or were you trying to be funny?

and we all know how well that works

[Anonymous Coward]

99% of digg.com stories are utter crap. If you're looking for an endless stream of Firefox/Google/Freeware links, you'll be quite happy there. If you're looking for anything interesting, you've got to dig pretty deep as it will never hit the front page.

They have a discussion system of sorts, but there is absolutely no point in trying to discuss anything with those idiots. If you think slashdot is full of immature fanboys, you ain't seen nothing yet sister.

This is an excellent idea

[veganopolis]

I am really curious to know how this pans out. Personally, I wouldn't work for anyone else anyway, but I would much rather be involved with a system like this than an authoritative dictatorship. That is what has always turned me away from the old-world style corporations.

Some people need others telling them what to do, and others work better on their own. Ok, I had to stop myself from being a jerk right there...

I wonder what the real motivation behind this was though?

Re:This is an excellent idea

[Anonymous Coward]

This style of non-hierarchial management
gained some attention about 5-7 years ago
and was tried by a number of companies.
It turned out to be a disaster. No one has
yet to come up with a management organization
that works bettern than the hierarchial
structure.

Re:This is an excellent idea

[BrainInAJar]

Let me paraphrase that before I comment:
"This style of non-hierarchial government gained some attention about 250-270 years ago and was tried by a number of countries. It turned out to be a disaster. No one has yet to come up with a government organization that works bettern than the hierarchial structure."

Sometimes it's not about efficiency

Re:This is an excellent idea

[Shaper_pmp]

I'm also curious. This reminds me a great deal of the Iain Banks novel "The Business". It's not a particularly riveting story compared to some of his other works, but it does have the very interesting concept of a huge, democratically run multinational corporation.

Complete internal financial transparency, leadership elections, and the majority of advancement bonuses paid in company-owned perks - it's always struck me as the single most ideal place to work I've ever heard of.

I'm also inclined to agree with Paul Graham - normal employer/employee relationships are basically holdovers from master/servant roles, and so artificially restrictive and inefficient in the modern day workplace.

sure there are always people who'll need a goodkick up the arse, but why does that have to come from a boss, and not their co-workers. If you vote for your boss and you can vote to have people fired/demoted, it's more likely people will get punished for being crap in the opinion of the majority of people they work with, not just the boss's opinion. Whose opinion do you trust more?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

WSJ written article and it shows

[macshune]

The article talks about how business-related interest groups can be developed and how they can help the bottom line, but they don't talk about all the other non-business, 'special-interest' groups and how they function within the corporation and how they help productivity & morale, even if the results are less than fiscally apparent.

Reminds me of this article that someone linked to yesterday about how companies can do wonders for recruitment if they use low-cost, high-value devices to lure workers (free soda, juice, lunch, etc).

Also, did anyone else read 'Wall Street Journal columnist David Wessel' and think 'nuklear' ?

Re:WSJ written article and it shows

[winkydink]

Do you mean nuke-u-lure?

People forget that Jimmy Carter was a nuclear engineer and he pronounced it the same way.

Re:WSJ written article and it shows

[superspaz]

Good article. Funny how many professional HR people miss such things. I can't describe how much natural lighting improves my mood even when working in a cube farm. I'd be willing to take a 5% cut in pay to work in real light rather than in florecent hell.

Re:WSJ written article and it shows

[chris_eineke]

Isn't this what they call "anectodal evidence"? Just because this Jimmy Carter guy was a POTUS and a nuclear engineer doesn't mean that we have to fall on our knees and chant:

"NUUUUUUUUUUUKUUUUUUUUUUUULAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAR!"

Would GWB be considered anectodal evidence for the POTUS being a chimp?

Strangely Familiar

[MightyMartian]

It's all so familiar...

ARTHUR: Old woman!
DENNIS: Man!
ARTHUR: Man, sorry. What knight lives in that castle over there?
DENNIS: I'm thirty seven.
ARTHUR: What?
DENNIS: I'm thirty seven -- I'm not old!
ARTHUR: Well, I can't just call you `Man'.
DENNIS: Well, you could say `Dennis'.
ARTHUR: Well, I didn't know you were called `Dennis.'
DENNIS: Well, you didn't bother to find out, did you?
ARTHUR: I did say sorry about the `old woman,' but from the
behind you looked--
DENNIS: What I object to is you automatically treat me like an
inferior!
ARTHUR: Well, I AM king...
DENNIS: Oh king, eh, very nice. An' how'd you get that, eh? By exploitin' the workers -- by 'angin' on to our outdated imperialist dogma which perpetuates the economic an' social differences in our society! If there's ever going to be any progress--
WOMAN: Dennis, there's some lovely filth down here. Oh -- how d'you do?
ARTHUR: How do you do, good lady. I am Arthur, King of the
Britons. Who's castle is that?
WOMAN: King of the who?
ARTHUR: The Britons.
WOMAN: Who are the Britons?
ARTHUR: Well, we all are. we're all Britons and I am your king.
WOMAN: I didn't know we had a king. I thought we were an autonomous collective.
DENNIS: You're fooling yourself. We're living in a dictatorship. A self-perpetuating autocracy in which the working classes--
WOMAN: Oh there you go, bringing class into it again.
DENNIS: That's what it's all about if only people would--
ARTHUR: Please, please good people. I am in haste. Who lives in that castle?
WOMAN: No one live there.
ARTHUR: Then who is your lord?
WOMAN: We don't have a lord.
ARTHUR: What?
DENNIS: I told you. We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week.
ARTHUR: Yes.
DENNIS: But all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special biweekly meeting.
ARTHUR: Yes, I see.
DENNIS: By a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs,--
ARTHUR: Be quiet!
DENNIS: --but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more--
ARTHUR: Be quiet! I order you to be quiet!
WOMAN: Order, eh -- who does he think he is?
ARTHUR: I am your king!
WOMAN: Well, I didn't vote for you.
ARTHUR: You don't vote for kings.
WOMAN: Well, 'ow did you become king then?
ARTHUR: The Lady of the Lake, [angels sing] her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water signifying by Divine Providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. [singing stops] That is why I am your king!
DENNIS: Listen -- strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
ARTHUR: Be quiet!
DENNIS: Well you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!
ARTHUR: Shut up!
DENNIS: I mean, if I went around sayin' I was an emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me they'd put me away!
ARTHUR: Shut up! Will you shut up!
DENNIS: Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system.
ARTHUR: Shut up!
DENNIS: Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
HELP! HELP! I'm being repressed!
ARTHUR: Bloody peasant!
DENNIS: Oh, what a give away. Did you hear that, did you hear that, eh? That's what I'm on about -- did you see him repressing me, you saw it didn't you?

Re:Strangely Familiar

[tregetour]

You don't have to quote the whole thing,.. once we hear the begining we can finish it off.

Re:Strangely Familiar

[Scooter]

It doesn't even have to be the first line.....

"It's only a model..."
"What's yer favourite colour?"
"it's only a flesh wound!"
"Where? Behind the rabbit?"
"...and they had to eat Robin's troubadours.."
"4 shalt thou not count"

btw - wasn't it "...I'm being oppressed!"??

Re:Strangely Familiar

[Xentor]

If you start doing that, you have to mention the rest of them, too. Here, let me give you a hand.

"One day, lad, all this will be yours!"
"To maintain airspeed velocity, a swallow..."
"We are the knights who say..."
"The castle aaaaaaaggghhhh"
"Your mother was a hamster, and your father..."
"Logically, if she weighs the same as a duck..."
"You're using coconuts!"
"Bad, naughty Zoot!"

All hail the Pythons! *hums the chant and smacks himself in the face with his keyboard*

Voting Your Shares

[Doc Ruby]

Professionals have organized democratic professional organizations for centuries. In fact, the high rate of "society" membership among American colonists was one way they were prepared to design the longest-lasting democratic republic to date: the USA. Americans have continued to be "joiners".

What is changing is that these organizations are now possible, with low management overhead, within large organizations, due to increasingly cheap and complex comms tech, that's also easy to use. Scientific and engineering professionals are among the most likely to join professional organizations that elect leaders, and to use these techs. And our jobs are so complicated that they need to leverage our social skills to manage productivity. While those skills are increasingly unavailable to "management specialists" who therefore aren't really scientists or engineers. So the "privatization" of these communities is inevitable.

Of course, the Wall Street Journal won't see it that way. They instead see it as the "democritization of the workplace". Which it is, also. But that's because democracy is the best way for complex groups of productive people to specialize and work together. The WSJ inability to see it that way, to see it as a source of fear for other companies, says more about their attitude towards democracy than about their understanding of professional working structures.

Re:Voting Your Shares

[MightyMartian]

The Wall Street Journal, voted best newspaper to wipe your ass with by the Homeless Stock Crash Victims Association six years running.

Re:Voting Your Shares

[lamp540]

If voluntary associations had so much to do with the creation of the Nation then why did it fight a brutal and bloody civil war 70 years later to enforce an INvoluntary association? (the union)

Re:Voting Your Shares

[Doc Ruby]

I'll take your specious question seriously: Because the South was in danger of becoming one of our enemies, and associating with them to our mutual destruction. Though, with your take on the Union, I suspect that you're still fighting that war down in Dixie, and think the Confederacy would still be whistlin' today. Along with its INvoluntary association of black people to chains.

Re:Voting Your Shares

[skubeedooo]

To be fair the WSJ was quoting a consultant who said that some other companies are scared of the idea. It wasn't WSJ's fear, nor even the consultants fear. So I don't think you can really infer anything about how the WSJ views democracy from this article.

Re:Voting Your Shares

[Doc Ruby]

Of course you can infer things from the writer's selection of what they report. The WSJ writer decided that the "fear" quote was valid and appropriate to the story they're telling. It resonated with the writer, and they told us to think it.

Whether we do think it is up to us. Whether it resonates with us. Whether we corroborate it with our own experience, or contradict it. Whether we accept the bias of the writer, of merely use it for parallax. If you can't read a newspaper, especially one as politicized as the Wall Street Journal, and know its bias (at least generally), you'll never be able to use it as a lens through which to focus on reality. You'll just be using it as your eyes. That's too direct a connection to your brain, and you'll be fooled all the time.

Re:Voting Your Shares

[skubeedooo]

OK yes in general you can infer things from what types of comments are used and what aren't, but in this case it seemed more the other way round. The tone of the article (to me) was:

Schlumberger, this great company with lots of researchers, has created autonomous democratic associations within itself and is now gaining from this strategy. Other [lesser] companies may have some [irrational] fear about it though.

So, IMO, it was the other way round.

Wessels

[lilrowdy18]

Walter Koenig: When we woke up, we had these bodies.
Fry: Say it in Russian.
Walter Koenig: [groans] Ven we voke up, we had these wodies.
Fry: [delighted] Wheeee. Now say "nuclear wessels".
Walter Koenig: NO.

Re:Schlumberger

[Anonymous Coward]

Schlumberger was (is?) a great and magic engineering company, and is kind of unique regarding diversity and readyness to try new things (first corporate adopter of Cisco, Netscape and maybe the largest owner of IP adresses and the largest corporate network in the 80s).

Well anyhow, I salute Claude Baudoin and the other peoples behind this initiative. In his Powerpoint presentation of Eureka and the technical communities, there was a Dilbert comics, which infuriated some of the pointy-haired bosses at the time.

Cheers, to the good old days.

J

You forgot Iceland

[Anonymous Coward]

...to design the longest-lasting democratic republic to date: the USA

You might want to learn a thing or to about history.

Re:You forgot Iceland

[Procyon101]

From the wiki: ...The constitution, written in 1874, was revised in 1903...

The existing government isn't that old. It's only the parliment, which in times past has been relegated only to tradition, through blood feuds and near monarchies, that is really old.

Check out Semco

[Anonymous Coward]

A Brazilian company that has been democratic for 20 years, and a book review (with excerpt).

Re:Check out Semco

[servognome]

He fired most of the top managers and got rid of most management layers; there are now three. He eliminated nearly all job titles. There's still a CEO, but a half-dozen senior managers trade the title every six months, in March and September

Doesn't sound like democracy, more like getting rid of middle management and placing more trust at the worker level.

Re:Check out Semco

[Anonymous Coward]

That was the first step. Read further. For instance,

"The autonomous team idea was adopted throughout the company. As it evolved the teams began hiring and firing both workers and supervisors by democratic vote."

Re:Check out Semco

[Anonymous Coward]

Fascinating story, no doubt the most interesting company in history.

Bazaar Leadership.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Carl Bialik from the WSJ writes "Oil-services company Schlumberger is doing something unusual for a big corporation: fostering the creation of online groups of employees with similar interests and allowing these communities to govern themselves and choose their leaders."

I have a book that talks about a similiar thing happening in a Brazillian (oil?) company. Mind you this is before the Internet made it big.

"Richard McDermott, a consultant, tells Wessel such a management structure is unusual: 'People...see it as a real democratic institution in what is otherwise an authoritarian institution, a business.' Wessel notes: 'Other companies, apparently, are scared of that.'""

So is he saying that Schlumberger wasn't scared of it before?

--
"The "are you a script" word for today is ambition

Re:Wessel

[Anonymous Coward]

Kiptin! Sensor readin's indicate that ancient starship is rilly a nuclear WESSEL!

Linus' Management Structure is Unusual Too

[Supp0rtLinux]

... but it works... PDA & Smartphone Optimized Sites

Nice try...

[moviepig.com]

Turnout in early elections was an impressive 60%, but it since has fallen to 30%.

Golly, it does sound like a real democracy...

The puzzle for large corporations employing highly skilled professionals is how to tap and maintain entrepreneurial vigor. I don't see clearly whether Schlumberger has pulled this off, but kudos for a creative try.

Communities of Practice at Novell

[Azul]

Novell has very similar communities. You can read a little bit about them in this article of Novell's Connection Magazine (and, as you can see, this article is about 1 1/2 years old):

From Architecture to Secure Identity Management (SIM), Analytics to exteNd, Novell employees are putting their heads together in Communities of Practice. At Novell, Communities are more than just a group of like-minded individuals talking shop. They provide a primary information source for members, while promoting networking and fostering a culture that values and encourages knowledge sharing and collaboration.

While our communities aren't entirely self-governing, this doesn't seem to matter much in practice. Participation in them is entirely optional. Being a co-leader of one of these communities, I can tell you Novell greatly recognizes their value...

Re:Communities of Practice at Novell

[hupskadee]

Many companies or parts of them have something like "Communities of Practice" or "Communities of Interest". In my master thesis I describe in fairly much detail how CoPs work and how they can be supported by software.

Chill-out Radres...

[turtleAJ]

Ok, this story wasn't posted by CmdrTaco...
In addition, I suggest you chill out... if provoked, there have been rumors of CmdrTaco commanding attacks towards his blasphemous underlings.
You see, phase 1 of the attack would see to it that your eMails and IP #s are posted on /.
Phase 2 would see your DSL connection burst in flames to the ground as eMail just pours in from all over the world... heck! You've got your computer sending you eMail!
By his all-mighty /. powers, Taco will then cause an attack on your different communications mediums... By using a combination of Java/WAP, your phone will also explode into a trillion fragments... All this by a direct attack on the open ports of your system (DNS, TCP and many, many other funny acronyms)...
By the same token, your cable/TV connection will receive an quantum encrypted channel 13 video feed... This will cause your TV's CRT beams to converge on a dedicated spot, which will, obviously melt the front glass an cause all sorts of mortal electron beam reflections throughout your house.
After extensive research, I've found out that when Taco is on a run, he's unstopabble...
After commanding any and all electronic devices that contain an electronic gate within (hell, a light switch will do!), Taco will use secret HTML/XML and some RSS feeds to jump onto your house's X10 electrical network.
Ultimately, he'll be able to broadcast massive InfraRed codes into your neighborgh's homes... Such IR codes will hi-jack your Jetta's stereo system and cause it to run-off in the middle of the night! This, using google Maps and some clever C# programming in unison with the feedback obtained from your town's traffic system.

In conclusion, chill out Radres... chill out.
and don't tune into channel 13

Pushing the idea a little further

[Mario B]

"Profit is set to be divided equally among workers, and the members elect their supervisors..." Taken from the following Bloomberg article.

Re:Pushing the idea a little further

[Kamiza Ikioi]

"Profit is set to be divided equally among workers, and the members elect their supervisors..."

Profit sharing is the only thing that would motivate most workers to participate in this. Your average worker wants their employer to succeed, but only as it positively affects their paycheck. Geologists and IT workers might love their work. The majority of factory workers do not. However, there is a lot of brain power going to waste in those workplaces, because most views go along the lines of "Why should I give them ideas? Any extra money it saves/makes goes into management pockets. Screw that."

I personally go to work for the paycheck. I save my brain for personal projects which I do because I love to do them. Unless my employer tied profits to my paycheck, I'm not giving them extra work for free. Communistic capitalism, which is how I think of this, can work... but only if it serves a definite capitalistic purpose. Nobody but the devoted really care if their company grows if that same worker hasn't gotten a raise in 5 years. In fact, they are probably hoping it fails just so they can get on unemployment and get paid to look for a better job.

I'm sure someone can show that the economics show that helpful workers earn more, but on a personal level, it really doesn't work that way very often. This is what drives entrepreneurs. You get out only what you put into a work. When you punch a time clock, you get the same whether you put in 110% or the bare minimum not to get fired.

Democratic???

[wwwrench]

I'm all for democracy in the workplace, after all, why only demand democracy and freedom from our governments. But really, if a company views this as a way to motivate its workers to improve the bottom line, then it isn't genuine -- you just give your workers enough freedom so that they shut up and work harder for you. Can the workers fire the CEO? Cap his/her salary? Decide the company should do good in the world rather than just exist to enrich shareholders?

There are steps towards genuine democracy in the workplace, like the recuperated factory movement in Argentina where factory workers refused to shut down the factories that were closing and instead, run them themselves, for themselves, and for the community. We really need to recognize that we don't live in a fully democratic society if we spend most of our waking hours working in what is effectively a tyranny.

Re:Democratic???

[mpost4]

But really, if a company views this as a way to motivate its workers to improve the bottom line, then it isn't genuine -- you just give your workers enough freedom so that they shut up and work harder for you. Can the workers fire the CEO? Cap his/her salary? Decide the company should do good in the world rather than just exist to enrich shareholders?

I think the concept you are trying to describe is a Cooperative

Re:Democratic???

[loqi]

[satire]
I'm sorry, but what you've described sounds too close to communism for me to have a rational discussion with you. Please allow to me to cite a list of oppressive, totalitarian regimes that called themselves "communist" or "socialist". Remember the fact that communism can't possibly work; otherwise it would have.
[/satire]

Re:Democratic???

[Politicus]

Oddly enough, professionals are the least likely labor class to do that.

Think ST:IV

[NickFortune]

Jimmy Carter pronounced it the same way as Pavel Checkov? Wow...

I'd never have had Carted pegged for a ruskie

This is a Soviet plot to destroy capitalism

[Anonymous Coward]

The House Un-American Activities Committee should investigate them.

Has been tried in some communist countries

[markov_chain]

The official name for companies in ex-Yu was WO, for "Workers' Organization." So instead of Microsoft Corp, in communist ex-Yu it would have been "WO Microsoft." These were self-governed, but eventually power structures would emerge often due to family and political connections. I'd love to know how this experiment works out.

Re:Has been tried in some communist countries

[Anonymous Coward]

The system was actually a brilliant move by a few top Communist party leaders to tone down the power struggle at the top of ex-YU highly hierarchical and non-democratic (dictatorship of the proletariat) system. On the short run it worked perfectly to diffuse the centrifugal tendencies at the top ranks and prolong an experiment in top down social engineering. However, in it's core it was run by Communist party officials directly or indirectly. Given that freedom of speech was non-existant it was impossible to reach working system. General corruption did not stop at the gates of such organizations on the contrary this system with it's lowering of the decision making level open the doors for corruption to spread even wider.

Looking in hindsight it is amazing that it actually made quite a few people fond of it. My guess is that it worked as well as it did because knowledge, history and political science were distorted to the limit. Ideology was king and there was only one ideology that could be practiced - the communist one. It's high points were the idealism (or self preservation?) towards ethnic and social equity in ex-YU and who's low points were complete disregard for freedom in the name of the first two. With the dissolution of the USSR the whole system finally fell on it's knees and took a swing in the other direction resulting 4 major conflicts (Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kosovo). In all fairness those cannot be attributed solely to the fallacy of the communist system or the backwardness of it's people but to strategic power plays in the region.

The lesson to be learned, one should pay really close attention at the status and politics within the Chinese military. But that's another topic altogether.

Re:Has been tried in some communist countries

[Xentor]

Wow... An intelligent analysis... You must be new here.

If it was so great...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why'd you leave? ;-)

decentralized decision making works

[albeit]

The US economy is more efficient than the Soviet ever was precisely because decisions can be made by those with better access to relevant information and individuals are free to make decisions that best suit their own interests. They voluntarily align their interests with others through enforceable contracts. Control from the top over how individuals allocate their resources is counterproductive. What is important is a stable, predictable legal framework and a solid, unmanipulated currency.

The same principle also work with a corporation. Investable assets should be controlled by those who have proven their good judgement and how they invest those assets, say in new products and services, should be guided by the information they have, not directives from on high (not that those are never suitable, sometimes they are).

There are many mechanisms which can put into place that leverage the capabilities of a free market. This is quite different, actually, from democracy, where everyone decides what the organization does. Each player actually decides the best use of the assets he has, rather than trying to decide what others should do.

In such an environment, leadership focusses on building this framework, creating incentives and making the system work better, rather than on dictating what should be done within the framework.

Re:decentralized decision making works

[albeit]

One of the elements that makes the economy work is a system of prices. People don't know what effort goes into creating something or making a service available; they only care about the price they have to pay. This enables them to focus on their particular part of the equation. So a system of prices for the factors of production available within a company that accurately reflect the costs involved in making those things available is essential to make such a system work. Otherwise, assests are allocated politically, which tends to break down as things scale. And, again, because of distance from information.

Re:decentralized decision making works

[Max_W]

"..US economy is more efficient than the Soviet..." - it is not over yet. Soviet system evolves, the US system is frozen. The US system brought ecologically disastrous economy, which can not exist without wars for resources.

Re:decentralized decision making works

[Anonymous Coward]

ha ha - u r 2 much dude

Re:decentralized decision making works

[mildgift]

There are many mechanisms which can put into place that leverage the capabilities of a free market. This is quite different, actually, from democracy, where everyone decides what the organization does. Each player actually decides the best use of the assets he has, rather than trying to decide what others should do.

Kudos to you for being an honest "capitalist". Most never admit that capitalism isn't democratic.

You make a serious error, however. Democracy isn't founded on people deciding what "others" should do; it's deciding on what "we" should do. The idea of democracy is based around the idea of people having control over decisionmaking.

Ownership of a business -- that is what allows someone to decide what someone else should do. If the unemployment level is low, the worker can quit, and you can say it's a voluntary servitude. If unemployment is very high, then, it's not so voluntary.

Re:decentralized decision making works

[mfrank]

If you want to see an ecologically disastrous economy, I suggest you go visit the former Soviet Union (Chernobyl, Aral Sea, etc.) or, even better, China.

Re:decentralized decision making works

[Max_W]

I do not speak of isolated incidents as Aral sea. I mean the wasteful economy in general. The "success" of the US economy is based on the pain and devastation of billions in the 3rd world.

Re:decentralized decision making works

[mfrank]

The pain and devastation of the billions in the 3rd world is largely the result of having asswipes for leaders and for buying into communism/socialism for a large part of the 20th century. Do you honestly think they'd be better off if America, or western civilization, didn't exist? If anything, the greatest cause of environmental devastation in the third world is overpopulation. Can't really blame that on the West (unless you count Republicans not sending them free condoms and paying for their abortions).

Re:decentralized decision making works

[Max_W]

New Deal in 30-s in the USA had also elements of Socialism. Western civilization practices unfair trade with the help of military pressure and puppet regimes. That's what keeps 3-rd world in poverty. Now when Hugo Chavez and some other leaders started to insist on the fair price of oil and other their products we see what started to happen to them.

Re:decentralized decision making works

[shanen]

Amusing version of efficiency theory. You're assuming that people actually know what is going on so that they can make meaningful choices.

It works rather differently in Bushevik Amerika. Whether they are selling you laundry soap, gasoline, or an eternal war on terrorism, they are not going to reveal any more of the truth than is convenient. Whatever is necessary to manipulate the sheeple is the rule. What happens if the truth is a "problem"? In that case, lies are no problem. At least that's how they see things. Sure the lies will eventually unravel, but they'll have your money by then. Worst case scenario, they'll need a pardon, too, but that's why those politicians and judges are bought and paid for.

Law of the Jungle works okay if you think you're the biggest lion.

Only oil companies :-)

[nektra]

Being an oil company in last times give you a lot of freedom to play.

Re:"Leaderless" Organizations

[xero314]

I always enjoy hearing people talk about their ability to work with out management or any form of leadership. I personally have held roles as manager and worker. large groups, or even small ones with head strong people, need leadership.

There is a right way and a wrong way to lead. Bossing people around, telling them how to do their job, and basically being controlling is no way to lead. Good leaders educate their workers, handle disputes between them and shield them from the red tape and annoyancies that are in all large companies.

I don't think it's a hard and fast rule, but I think you would have a hard time finding a reasonable sized company (say 25 or more) made up entirely of equals taking equal share in the work and responsibility.

Why not go all the way?

[br00tus]

If a business is self-governing, one wonders why a dividend check would be going out every month to the company owners. What are they doing? The workers are doing all the work, the workers are managing the company, all the owners are doing is taking a profit from the wealth created by the workers. For part of the day the workers are earning their own wages, for part of the day they are working for free, all the wealth they're creating in that period going to profit.. You could say capital reinvestment, but capital reinvestment does not go into a dividend check, and that money was created by the workers anyhow. It is just a grand ripoff, no different than serfs plowing wheat, or slaves picking cotton. Democratic indeed, it's not democratic at all unless you own it. There are much better examples of what is really a more democratic workplace. Like this for example. This sounds like one of those "safety circles" corporations set up, in an attempt to prevent any kind of democratic controll in the workplace.

Re:Why not go all the way?

[albeit]

The stockholders provided the capital to get things going and, in the case of a public company, additional capital in the IPO and any subsequent offerings.

They put real money at risk and are entitled to a return just as you are when you place your money in the bank. Except their return is not guaranteed and their entire investment could be lost. They are entitled to as much of a reward as their good judgement and tolerance for risk earns them.

Re:Why not go all the way?

[Anonymous Coward]

The stockholders provided the capital to get things going and, in the case of a public company, additional capital in the IPO and any subsequent offerings.

That's great! Wonderful! Now people can set a business in motion...except, somehow, everyone seems to get a piece of the pie from this wonderful risk, except the very people who work and make the service or product that the business is predicated on.

They put real money at risk and are entitled to a return just as you are when you place your money in the bank.

Erm, ok, but after they earn their money back (i.e. break even on original investment), just how much in returns are they entitled to? Wait a moment, I'll answer that in the next paragraph...

I love that bit about the bank. Tell me, why are there so many fees that I have to pay the bank, and why are the fees always higher than any interest or returns that I would earn from the bank? Could it have something to do with the fact that a bank is turning a profit from all of its customers, and not just the investments and loans it makes? In other words, if the bank is going to pay me for my "risk", why is it that I pay the bank more than the amount they pay me for the "risk"? From a "profit" perspective, isn't that a loosing proposition? Why bother banking at all? Why not keep your money in a safe at home? Don't tell me it bolsters the economy - the millions of bank customers are also part of the economy, so if they are loosing money each month, then how can that help the economy? And yes, I reject the notion that people will deposit enough money to earn enough interest to offset the fees charged by banks; by that time, people have deposited enormous sums of money, more than the average person will have on-hand at any point in time, so obviously it is not "commonplace". Just how much money do you have to put in to offset that $25.00 monthly fee when you draw a meager 3% interest? Hint: it's nearly the size of most people's paychecks after taxes. (I'll save you the math, it's $833.33) That's just to break even, and to earn more, you have to pay much more. Frankly, it sounds like a crummy deal to me, when compared below. And I'm being nice here, I didn't factor in inflation of the currency due to the fact that we are fiat-based and have nothing to tie the dollar against (I'm speaking for residents of the U.S.)

Except their return is not guaranteed and their entire investment could be lost. They are entitled to as much of a reward as their good judgement and tolerance for risk earns them.

Somehow that doesn't work out in practice. What happens is the stockholders hold the stock indefiniately, and reap returns indefinately. In other words, long past the point of the business potentially collapsing, long past the point of break-even on their initial investment, and before the ink even drys, they are guaranteed to receive returns for as long as the business stays functional AND profitable. This also includes if the business has been profitable for decades. In other words, large established businesses continue to pay money to the stockholders by virtue of stock ownership, risk be damned...yes, new technology and business practices can present a risk to established businesses, but the reality is that few businesses of that size fail due to those factors. Instead, they keep rolling along, and suddenly that "risky venture" looks more and more like a gravy train, and less like a gamble of someone's money...

I'm tired of the damned "neoclassical liberal economic" theories being taken at face value without critical analysis. We've based whole civilizations upon this predicated belief that money somehow creates things and energy (contrary to the laws of physics), instead of things and energy creating money. Stop spewing this textbook garbage, start looking at what you're really doing with your money. Chances are, you're really being taken for a ride...

Re:Why not go all the way?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's great! Wonderful! Now people can set a business in motion...except, somehow, everyone seems to get a piece of the pie from this wonderful risk, except the very people who work and make the service or product that the business is predicated on.

They get a salary. Don't like it? Start your own business and get your own "gravy train". I'm serious, by the way. The fact that you can make so much money starting your own company is the market's way of saying that we need more entrepreneurs. If everyone saved up their money and ended up starting their own company, then there would be a ton of jobs, but few employees. Supply and demand dictates that employee's wages must go up. That would be the market's way of saying we need more employees. It's a self-balancing system.

Erm, ok, but after they earn their money back (i.e. break even on original investment), just how much in returns are they entitled to?

They're entitled to what's left over after they pay all their expenses (i.e. wages, rents, etc.). You know, if the employees ever feel like they're being exploited, they can just quit, band together, and form a competing business. The employer can't force anyone to work for him. But there are many people who would like to exploit the fact that the employer needs labor, and the employer would like to exploit the fact that people are willing to do labor for money. As in all trade, both people are better off. The gravy train continues because both employer and employee feel like it's the optimal setup; if they didn't feel that way, one party would break off from the other.

In other words, long past the point of the business potentially collapsing, long past the point of break-even on their initial investment, and before the ink even drys, they are guaranteed to receive returns for as long as the business stays functional AND profitable.

Of course, because as long as the business stays functional AND profitable, society is benefiting from the business. If I can build a business that society can benefit from for a 100 years, why should my return be the same as someone who builds a business that society only benefits from for 10 years?

Re:Why not go all the way?

[br00tus]

Your argument is tautological - the system should be flawed due to a flaw in a system. Why should there be any "risk" at all? If one goes back to the 16th century, a blacksmith and a tanner would come to an agreement - the blacksmith would work a few hours on a few horseshoes, the tanner would work a few hours on a hide, and then they would trade. If the blacksmith didn't know someone needed a horseshoe, and would pay him (or the tanner with the hide for that manner), he wouldn't make one. Yet you talk about people using capital to create commodities they don't know if anyone wants to buy or can even afford to. Then you say because they take this completely unnecessary risk, they are entitled to the wealth others create. Your scenario only works if work-for-hire is not a possibility, when of course it is, and has been how things were always done up until the last few centuries.

Re:Why not go all the way?

[servognome]

Why should there be any "risk" at all? If one goes back to the 16th century, a blacksmith and a tanner would come to an agreement - the blacksmith would work a few hours on a few horseshoes, the tanner would work a few hours on a hide, and then they would trade. If the blacksmith didn't know someone needed a horseshoe, and would pay him (or the tanner with the hide for that manner), he wouldn't make one.

There is always risk. The blacksmith took the risk, he has tools, workshop, training. He invested his time and capital to have the ability to make a horseshoe. The tanner doesn't go to anybody and say "make me a horseshoe", he goes to the guy who took the risk and became a blacksmith.
The corporate system came about when the capital risks became so high, it was difficult for any single person to absorb. How many people have $1M to start up a small company? Now how many people have $10,000 to invest in a small company.

You can't treat something like a computer company that requires millions of dollars in investment as a true work-for-hire environment. It has to constantly be churning out product and trying to sell it, to cover the long term costs associated with the fixed investments (eg property taxes, electricity, upkeep, etc).

Re:Why not go all the way?

[Rimu]

it's not that simple not just anyone can start a business. especially in mature industries, large corporations maintain such high barriers to entry that is is impossible for new players to compete. in mature industries, large players then proceed to set their product's price at whatever the market will stand and whatever gets them the most profit, and then compete for 'market share'. they do not compete by lowering their prices (i.e. by giving society more benefit. nooo, that would lower profits), they do it by spending more on advertising. businesses do not exist to benefit society. they exist to make a profit.

Re:Why not go all the way?

[br00tus]

You are not talking about reality, but in the theoretical lala-land that most American economists are in. The type of modern capital risk nowadays is not a blacksmith who paid off his anvil and hammer years ago deciding whether or not to make a new horseshoe, it is a factory producing millions of horseshoes, and not knowing whether or not anyone wants to buy them. Often, no one does. The effects of this problem were alluded to by former GE CEO Jack Welch recently, "I think...you have a lot of capacity. So you got weak pricing power....You've got globalization. You've got global capacity everywhere...There are plants all over China that just built 20 million things that are coming in to this or that, so pricing pressure is what we're facing. The reason why jobs are tough is not volume. The reason why jobs are tough is there's no profitability."

All flaws in the system - chronic overproduction, recessions, chronic unemployment (to where in the US, the economic term "full employment" actually means 5% or so are unemployed who want jobs and can't find them). Companies can't "break even" - they must profit, meaning if some of the wealth created by people working isn't going to say some heir who inherited a company, the job will cease to exist. Not to mention that the average inflation-adjusted hourly wage in the US is below what it was 30 years ago. But that too is just another side effect.

Re:Why not go all the way?

[servognome]

The type of modern capital risk nowadays is not a blacksmith who paid off his anvil and hammer years ago deciding whether or not to make a new horseshoe, it is a factory producing millions of horseshoes, and not knowing whether or not anyone wants to buy them.

I addressed that issue, the higher level of risk you are talking about is what gave rise to the corporate system. In fact the corporate system allows people to control their risk exposure. Let's say nobody wants horseshoes. While on the whole the million dollar horseshoe factory will lose out more (millions vs thousands), at the personal level the individual investor in the factory will likely lose out less than the individual blacksmith (investment dollars vs entire livelihood).

What is the alternative to risk? You said it yourself it takes millions of dollars to start up a factory. If somebody wants 20,000 computers, it is extremely inefficient to build a factory that can only build 20,000 computers. The reason is once that order is gone what are you going to do? Also, we live in a world of competition. If you are waiting on an order to build a factory, somebody else who already has a factory can fill it before you have a chance to even break ground.
People on /. always take shots at marketing. But their job isn't just advertising, they are there to trying to understand the market needs. To ensure that factories are making products that people want to buy. If they fail you have factories over or under producing, if technical folks fail you have a broken product. In either case the company loses. The technical folks build it, the marketing folks sell it.

All flaws in the system - chronic overproduction, recessions, chronic unemployment (to where in the US, the economic term "full employment" actually means 5% or so are unemployed who want jobs and can't find them).

Wow, this must be the worst possible economic system, what is a better one? Every single economic system has flaws. You have limited resources, you can't make everything for everybody. All economics does is try to find the most efficient way to use and distribute limited resources.

Not to mention that the average inflation-adjusted hourly wage in the US is below what it was 30 years ago. But that too is just another side effect.

And our standard of living has increased. It doesn't matter what we make, it matters how we live.

The effects of this problem were alluded to by former GE CEO Jack Welch recently, "I think...you have a lot of capacity. So you got weak pricing power....You've got globalization. You've got global capacity everywhere...There are plants all over China that just built 20 million things that are coming in to this or that, so pricing pressure is what we're facing. The reason why jobs are tough is not volume. The reason why jobs are tough is there's no profitability

It's not just production in other countries, technology also has the same impact as globalization. Or do you not think jobs are lost when somebody creates a program that reduces the number of people needed to accomplish a task? How many bankers have been replaced by ATM machines, manufacturing workers by automation, statisticians and financial analysts by computer programs. Technology improves capacity without increasing jobs, do we abandon that too?

Re:Why not go all the way?

[Anonymous Coward]

There are much better examples of what is really a more democratic workplace. Like this for example.

Or Semco

Re:Why not go all the way?

[mildgift]

They put real money at risk and are entitled to a return just as you are when you place your money in the bank. Except their return is not guaranteed and their entire investment could be lost. They are entitled to as much of a reward as their good judgement and tolerance for risk earns them.

Umm... not to get too nitpicky, but your first sentence contradicts your second and third. The first is incorrect. The second and third are less so.

People who buy securities are mostly speculating on future profits, gains, and dividends. They're mainly competing against other stock traders, trying to outguess each other about how things will turn out.

The level of risk they incur is relatively small. First of all, they have enough capital to invest in something besides their own careers and house -- their overall fiscal situation isn't that precarious. Second, though stock market crashes occur, they aren't as common as drunks losing $500 at the tables in Vegas.

The risk they incur is a tiny fraction of the risk that, say, a woman refugee from a war-torn country incurs by boarding a plane for America, with her kids, but without sponsors.

Re:Why not go all the way?

[critical_v]

ahh, i wasn't logged in. great. now i'm a coward because i can't get an error message when i mistype my password.

anyway, enough of my complaining. i'm the one who just posted about antimarkets.

Re:Why not go all the way?

[Anonymous Coward]

But the risk is higher than putting the money in a savings account. If somebody has an option to keep his money in perfect safety, and you want him to move it to where there's a risk of losing part of it, you have to compensate him for that risk. Otherwise he'll just keep the bank account. This isn't rocket science.

Re:Why not go all the way?

[mfrank]

I'll dumb it down for you.

They put their money at risk and are entitled to *whatever return they can get*. There. No more contradiction. If you feel the people who made those investments don't "deserve" the money they make, you're perfectly free to buy those investments off them and make that money yourself. I'm sure if you offer enough money, they'll bite. Just like if you try to start a company and go to investors, hat in hand, asking for capital while telling them "oh by the way, we're going to limit your return to what we feel is reasonable", they'll tell you to take a long walk off a short pier and will invest their money in a venture that isn't been run by an idiot.

Money is a resource, just like labor, real estate, oil, lumber, whatever. It tends to be the *limiting* resource because most people are either idiotic spendthrifts, morons who made stupid life choices, or people that have had just plain bad luck. That's why it's called capitalism, not laborism.

So, who do you think should be deciding where people's money should go? The government? News flash, chief; it's been tried and the results, I'm sorry to say, weren't all that good. You can count the dead in the tens of millions.

BTW, the woman on the plane coming to America? Why is she coming to America? Think hard.

Now, I'll admit there are problems with capitalism. To paraphrase Churchill, capitalism is the worst economic system ever devised, except for all the others. But taming the beast that is capitalism is government's job, and they've done a piss poor job of it, mostly because elected officials are whores and most of the population are idiots (see above). But what *you* want to do (telling people what to do with their money) will only make things worse.

Re:Why not go all the way?

[bluGill]

So don't start your business in a mature industry with high barriers to enter. There are plenty of industries that you can get into.

Though I'm not sure that there are industries that you can't compete in if you try. You will never compete with Microsoft Word on the international market (at least not in one year), but if you look you can find things that Word doesn't do and sell to those who need that feature.

You Invented Iceland

[Doc Ruby]

I'm always ready to believe the best about Iceland. But even that Wikipedia entry tells how Iceland was controlled by the Danish king as recently as the 1900s:

"n 1874, a thousand years after the first acknowledged settlement, Denmark granted Iceland home rule, which again was extended in 1904. The constitution, written in 1874, was revised in 1903, and a minister for Icelandic affairs, residing in Reykjavík, was made responsible to the Alingi. The Act of Union, a December 1, 1918, agreement with Denmark, recognized Iceland as a fully sovereign state united with Denmark under a common king. Iceland established its own flag and asked that Denmark represent its foreign affairs and defense interests. The Act would be up for revision in 1940 and could be revoked three years later, if an agreement wasn't reached."

  That's hardly a democratic republic, not the way the US Constitution sets one out.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

i would love to work this way

[ActionAL]

i would love to work this way.

too commonly is the workplace filled with smart people at the bottom doing the work while people who aren't smart enough to do the work get promoted up to become managers just because they are more well-spoken.

in my opinion the team should elect its own manager.

unfortunately we are subject to everyone trying to climb over each other and if you don't and you decide to stay where you are because you enjoy what you do and are good at it, they start pressing people to "spend time in the jungle" which is get out of the division and experience other positions and responsibilities at other divisions.

very rarely can we ever -just- do our work, walking into the corporate world for me exposed me to a world of office politics and a slow bureaucratic mind numbing machine.

currently the people who get on top are the ones who are well spoken, have the best presentable image, but they are not the experts. so if they are not the experts why are they paid insanely magnified times the salary of a worker is actually the expert?

what does this guy above me do all day anyway?

Re:i would love to work this way

[servognome]

in my opinion the team should elect its own manager.

Who would you elect? The guy who is nice to everybody, knows exactly how the job can be done, can mentor you, but isn't very well spoken, and not abrasive enough to attack somebody else when they are wavering. Or the guy who may not know as much, is well spoken, able to debate and subvert others arguments, and is agressively trying to get ahead.
Now before you answer, remember this guy is representing you to higher management. He will likely be debating other groups for resources, and debating higher management and marketing on timelines.
Personally I've had both kinds of managers, and as much as I thought I would like the former, the workplace environment is better under the latter. Your managers responsibility is to get you what you need. If they know the nature of the job, all the better, but it isn't necessarily a requirement. What you want is for them to trust you, have enough intelligence to communicate your needs to others. Then you want to set them loose like a bulldog to get you those things. A key skill is to learn how to manage your manager.

very rarely can we ever -just- do our work, walking into the corporate world for me exposed me to a world of office politics and a slow bureaucratic mind numbing machine.

That's because we don't work in a vaccuum. There are people out of work who want your job, there are people in other divisions who want a raise, there are people who need your help to accomplish their job.

currently the people who get on top are the ones who are well spoken, have the best presentable image, but they are not the experts. so if they are not the experts why are they paid insanely magnified times the salary of a worker is actually the expert?

Because they have skills you and ambition many other people don't posess. If you are the expert, why don't you lead?

what does this guy above me do all day anyway?

Probably stuff you wouldn't want to do, all those annoying political things. Plus alot of difficult decision making. You can always try for the position to find out.

Re:i would love to work this way

[mildgift]

Some people *can* switch hit, of course.

serv: this is to the person you're replying.

The thing to remember, as a technical worker, is that there's a symbiotic relationship between you and the company. You get to specialize and avoid developing advanced political skills (which you really should develop) and the owners get to make scads of money off your highly skilled labor.

OK, that didn't come out quite right.

Suppose you were a freelancer. You'd soon find that you'd want to hire people to do things you hate to do. Maybe it's networking and making pitches, or maybe it's accounting. In fact, you'd find that you NEED these people to make a living, and that would entail learning how to "tip" people for sending work your way. The tips would be small - a hundred here, or a couple hundred there.

Now, don't get me wrong. You would definitely end up doing a little of everything, but, eventually, you'd need to find people to complement you. Their strengths would make up for where you're weak. This is normal.

Re:i would love to work this way

[ActionAL]

I understand your point about ambition, we do have ambition, the people who work in our field who studied CS and graduated from top univerisities didn't come into this field dreaming of becoming a politics manager, we love computer science and we have the ambition in technology and science. Most managers I would say are not ambitious about that field of study, but are ambitious to their own selfish means (make more money, appear more powerful)

Here really it's not one or the other that would make the best manager, it is both, we would elect a manager who is an expert in CS and is also well spoken and can get things done for us outside of our team. But we would never elect someone who just doesn't want to do the work and wants to propel themselves up and up just because they seek power and more money.

We do possess these skills, the problem is not -us-, the problem is the image you have inside your head that the techies are just coders. Linus Torvalds is an expert and he manages linux versions in a large community that depends on many many people to get the work done. He is not some goober who doesn't know how to code and just is at the top to be at the top.

This is dangerous, one reason there are annoying politcal things to do is because the organization itself creates alot of red tape in order to get some simple things done.

I can tell you every team i've had in school was the most successful team in the class. The reason is because each and everyone of us were experts, the elected manager was an expert plus a great communicator, and he also was down in the ditches coding with us late at night. On a note of leadership, natural leadership arises within the team depending on the situation, why physics is needed, someone on the team with more expertise in physics speaks up about it and we get excited. If graphic design is needed, the same thing happens. We all have strengths to contribute at times of leadership. That is what the team needs.

Re:i would love to work this way

[ActionAL]

I understand your point about ambition, we do have ambition, the people who work in our field who studied CS and graduated from top univerisities didn't come into this field dreaming of becoming a politics manager, we love computer science and we have the ambition in technology and science. Most managers I would say are not ambitious about that field of study, but are ambitious to their own selfish means (make more money, appear more powerful)

Here really it's not one or the other that would make the best manager, it is both, we would elect a manager who is an expert in CS and is also well spoken and can get things done for us outside of our team. But we would never elect someone who just doesn't want to do the work and wants to propel themselves up and up just because they seek power and more money.

We do possess these skills, the problem is not -us-, the problem is the image you have inside your head that the techies are just coders. Linus Torvalds is an expert and he manages linux versions in a large community that depends on many many people to get the work done. He is not some goober who doesn't know how to code and just is at the top to be at the top.

This is dangerous, one reason there are annoying politcal things to do is because the organization itself creates alot of red tape in order to get some simple things done.

I can tell you every team i've had in school was the most successful team in the class. The reason is because each and everyone of us were experts, the elected manager was an expert plus a great communicator, and he also was down in the ditches coding with us late at night. On a note of leadership, natural leadership arises within the team depending on the situation, why physics is needed, someone on the team with more expertise in physics speaks up about it and we get excited. If graphic design is needed, the same thing happens. We all have strengths to contribute at times of leadership. That is what the team needs.

Re:i would love to work this way

[servognome]

We do possess these skills, the problem is not -us-, the problem is the image you have inside your head that the techies are just coders.

But as you pointed out, "very rarely can we ever -just- do our work." Most people just want to get their work done. Some may possess the skills to manage, but not possess the desire to deal with the political issues. But those issues have to be dealt with by somebody

Most managers I would say are not ambitious about that field of study, but are ambitious to their own selfish means (make more money, appear more powerful)

Ideally you have technically knowledgable person with the soft skills to manage, but not everybody is so well rounded. If I had to choose, I would choose somebody who could manage, over somebody who was technically knowledgable to manage my team. Often what you find with a good manager is if they don't have the knowledge they will rely on their team. For example my work is in the area of electronics and metallurgy, and my manager was a statistician. He didn't have the background to understand intermetallic growth, crack propogation, joint fatigue, etc. He didn't have to, it wasn't his job to know what those things were, it was mine. He was, however, intelligent enough to understand the data and follow my interpretations from a logical standpoint, sometimes pointing out conflicts in my logic and the data, or finding points that weren't fully supported. He also had the skills to effectively communicate my work at a high level to others, and negotiate away issues that prevented me from accomplishing my tasks.

This is dangerous, one reason there are annoying politcal things to do is because the organization itself creates alot of red tape in order to get some simple things done.

While some is just red tape, other times its the fact that tough decisions have to be made. Resources are limited within a company, and everybody needs resources to be effective.

I can tell you every team i've had in school was the most successful team in the class. The reason is because each and everyone of us were experts, the elected manager was an expert plus a great communicator, and he also was down in the ditches coding with us late at night. On a note of leadership, natural leadership arises within the team depending on the situation, why physics is needed, someone on the team with more expertise in physics speaks up about it and we get excited. If graphic design is needed, the same thing happens. We all have strengths to contribute at times of leadership. That is what the team needs.

Manager does not always = leader for every situation. Managers are decision makers. An important skill to learn is how to influence those decisions, so they aren't telling you what to do, you are telling them what you need. Often good managers, if not technically savvy themselves, will have technical leads (people who are experts within the team) who help them make decisions.
The difference between school and the working world is there are alot less barriers to success. Typically in school you are not resource constrained, or at least there is resource parity between teams. Your team structure would probably be different if you had to negotiate against the other teams. Imagine if there is only one computer for the teams to share, and the instructor got to decide how much time each team would have to use it. While internally the physics guy may be leading the technical side of the project, you will probably need somebody with a different set of skills to get you the computer time you need to be successful.

Re:"Leaderless" Organizations

[drsquare]

Why do these people "need" leadership? Will they fail at their tasks without it?

Without leadership, who gives them the tasks?

Without leadership, who makes sure they actually do the tasks rather than sitting whining on Slashdot all day?

as a Schlumberger employee...

[Anonymous Coward]

As a Schlumberger employee who recently moved from the semiconductor industry to the oil industry - I can't say enough good things about Schlumberger's online community efforts. One of the MANY reasons I walked away from my former employer was the piss poor way they handled (or didn't handle) knowledge management. My former employer, despite being a "high tech" company was very low tech in terms of knowledge sharing and shared learning. Schlumberger is so far ahead in this respect there is really no comparison.

Re:as a Schlumberger employee...

[M-G]

Do they give news employees a training session in which they teach you to pronounce the company's name correctly? :)

Re:"Leaderless" Organizations

[MontyApollo]

Most of the places I have worked, half my coworkers were idiots. I don't want them having any say on how things should work.

traditional system is best

[Anonymous Coward]

here is how promotions work nowadays:

if you are really good at your job, you don't get promoted, because then the company loses a good asset and has to train another one.

if you don't really know what you are doing, you are probably bored with your job. therefore, you talk a lot to whoever is around, improving your social skills. the company promotes you because you have well-developed social skills, also because you are deadwood floating around, getting in people's way. if they promote you, they can hire somebody who knows what they are doing to do your previous work.

the current system, by keeping the good workers working, and moving the socially-developed workers into management, allowing them to hire better workers, creates an efficient company. why change the way it runs?

Real democracies wage real war

[joelsanda]

People...see it as a real democratic institution in what is otherwise an authoritarian institution, a business.

If these are like America's democracy can they declare war on another country because it might have a product they don't like, even if there's no evidence the product exists?

Knowledge Management vs. Corporate Governance

[limptrizkit]

Before you break out your Little Red Books and start chanting "Workers of the World Unite!" you may want to RTFA.

The "Eureka Groups" mentioned in the article were formed for the express purpose of fostering the development of expertise and sharing of knowledge within the larger organization. The groups were self-governing in that they elected "leaders", but these people--and everyone else in the groups--had day jobs. They all had bosses. Their bosses had bosses, and their bosses' bosses... and so on... whose boss' "boss" were the shareholders of the company.

An egalitarian, colegial environment is usually what you see when ideas are the main currency of the organization. But once you start talking about cold, hard cash, accountability (e.g., who did the shareholders entrust their money with) becomes paramount. Particularly as the goals of the organization become larger, more formal command structures become necessary just to keep track of the sheer complexity of the business.

In the end, whenever you talk about getting together with other people to accomplish some sort of task--be it producing edible food on an organic farm, or designing and assembling a full automotive product line--someone needs to decide how all of the pieces of the puzzle fit together. You can take your pick when it comes to governance--the structure you need will depend on what you're trying to accomplish--but you'll always need to find some way of making decisions, setting direction, etc.

Now, if you want to talk about actual business decisions being made democratically, the best example is... drum roll, please... a democratic government. Want a good example of a product created by a democratic government? The Space Shuttle comes to mind...

In any event, it's easy to sit in a cubicle knee-deep in code, engineering drawings, etc, and wonder what your boss does all day. While you're sitting there, posting on Slashdot and contemplating the ways in which you might be able to avoid doing things you don't like doing, your boss is involved in deciding what kind of work you're actually going to be paid to do.

Grass is always greener...

[Anonymous Coward]

"what does this guy above me do all day anyway?"

Become one and find out.

Scary idea

[Hrodvitnir]

'Other companies, apparently, are scared of that.'

I'm not surprised. How long before elected managers start bearing a resemblance to our society's elected officials. I don't want politicians vying fo my vote in the workplace.

stupid posturing...

[ComputerSherpa]

Wessel notes: 'Other companies, apparently, are scared of that.' BS. Just because a company doesn't understand how a concept might possibly work doesn't mean they're scared of it.

Related and semi-related links

[Money for Nothin']

"The End of Management?"

"Market Experiments Inside Companies"

Yahoo's prediction market

Prediction market

You too can bet in prediction markets!

Re:Schlumberger

[Anonymous Coward]

...there was a Dilbert comics, which infuriated some of the pointy-haired bosses at the time.

Oh, I forget which division of which company this was, other than it was not oilfield services:
http://www.mindspring.com/~benbradley/dilbert_and_ boss.jpg

Waiting for firsts

[Tablizer]

So who is going to be the first who is fired via wiki consensus?

Re:Waiting for firsts

[Jedi Alec]

Cowboy Neal of course!

do you know anything about corporations?

[dh003i]

There is a name for what you're describing, and that's syndicalism. Let a bunch of workers get together and form syndicates, as they bumble and stumble along towards bankruptcy. Of course, the reality is that, in such a system, if there is freedom, workers would be able to sell their shares of ownership, and concentration in ownership could (and most likely would, due to specialization) arise.

However, within corporations as most of them exist now, the sole purpose of that corporation is to enrich shareholders. That's why shareholders invest their money in equity-issuances to begin with. They're the owners, and almost all corporate charters declare that the purpose of their existence is to maximize shareholder wealth (NPV) by engaging in their specific line of business.

Re:do you know anything about corporations?

[evvk]

In cooperatives every member has one vote, not vote per share like in stock companies. Power can't concentrate if one can never have more than one vote and everyone has the equal chance to communicate their message. Vote per head in no way clashes with freedom. It guarantees it, unlike vote per buck which concentrates power and thus removes freedom from those without many bucks.

Re:do you know anything about corporations?

[dh003i]

People don't "lose freedom" by working for companies: it was a voluntary choice. What you're describing -- the syndicate form of organization -- is one (usually foolish) form of organization that could be laid out in a corporate charter. Any arrangement that people enter into voluntarily -- of their own free will -- is compatible with freedom. A syndicate just happens to be a very foolish form of organization. See Mises, Ludwig von. Syndicalism and Corporatism.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:"Leaderless" Organizations

[verus vorago]

what does "relatively absolute" mean?

Sounds like a Knowledge Management concept.

[luthor]

This sounds like the Knowledge Mangement concept of Communities of Practice from Wenger.

If you put together people with similar knowledge and interests, the idea is that this can be a forum for learning and problem solving through interactions with the group.

http://www.co-i-l.com/coil/knowledge-garden/cop/ls s.shtml

This is a reasonably popular concept in Knowledge Management.

Office politics by another name

[Un pobre guey]

"'People...see it as a real democratic institution in what is otherwise an authoritarian institution, a business.' Wessel notes: 'Other companies, apparently, are scared of that.'"

Ooh, I'm scared too! While it sounds revolutionary, it actually is not. Just give employees who are already the most inclined to participate in corporate office politics a bit of press and possibly some budget for meetings and other activities, and this is what you get. I was at a biotech company that did this with their scientists. After three years or so, not much had come of it but inflated egos and a lot of hot air.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

SLB has incredible retention

[deeny]

There's even a Schlumberger Spouse's Association: http://www.ssafara.net/

(I have to admit having envy over that concept)

Soviet Russia

[MacDelaney]

In Soviet Russia, you are The Boss! wait a moment...

Re:"Leaderless" Organizations

[HolyCrapSCOsux]

Wasn't it Douglas Adams that said something to the effect of ... "Anyone who wants to be a leader is the least qualified to do a good job of it" -badly paraphrased from HHGTG

This is not exactly a new idea, but

[zero0w]

Well, this self-governing community is not exactly a new idea. Peter Drucker actually advised General Motors to do ths same back in 1946, as recorded in his first Management book Concept of the Corporation.

General Motors didn't buy this idea and even thought it was some sort of usurpation and opportunist bet. Its CEO back then, Alfred Sloan, wrote a book in response to these suggestions and requests - My Years with General Motors.

Even though American companies missed the boat in forming better corporate governance by creating such self-governance communities, the Japanese picked up the idea. Of course they had a somewhat different goal to what it means to start a business, but in general this helped many Japanese companies to rise and shine at the level of where they are today - many world class manufacturers and industrialists.

Can't be true!

[Anonymous Coward]

That can't be true! It sounds much too much like anarchy, and that I've been told over and over will never work.

As an SLB employee

[Anonymous Coward]

I can vouch for the relative accuracy of the article. The communities are indeed self governing and an excellent way to exchange ideas among the (many) technical people in the organisation. Moreover, the knowledge management strategy is streets ahead of anything I've seen in other organisations. There isn't really any interference from upper level management, except when funding might be requested for technical conferences and the like. I know when I came up as a junior engineer, the bulletin boards and communities of practice were of enormous assistance to help me further my knowledge. After a period of time, I became a leader of on the SIG's and found it to be good both for one's profile in the organisation and a way to meet other like minded folks (and exchange ideas).

The thing that makes it work is the organisational culture. SLB engineers are encouraged to be independent and show initiative, without necessarily gaining permission from HQ first. I think Henry and Claude have done a great job building this and hope it continues long after they retire.

Re:yuo Fai=l _It?!

[Anonymous Coward]

you need to suck seed!

Re:WTF?

[mildgift]

You both have it wrong.

Fundamentally, management represents the interests of the owners. That interest is to create or maintain profits.

"Leadership" is one way to get profits, especially if you are overseeing a labor force that's not captive, and enjoys low unemployment. Change the economics, or the economic context to high unemployment, and the "tyrant" or "assh---" model of management will start to make more sense.

The workplace without managers can operate, and well, if the economic situation is relatively static. Then, all the workers are working for the market -- the "boss" is the market, and the "boss" is predictable. I've seen a lot of co-ops do okay, sometimes for decades.

Schlumberger does oil. It's predictable and profitable.

In a dynamic market, though, you need focus and risk-taking, and that requires either a group of people with the same goal, all taking the risk together, or one maniac with a lot of money (or debt) and a less maniacal group of people who are paid to create that vision. Or, something in between.

In those situations, you need management to convince the workers that they aren't taking a huge personal risk by putting their faith in a maniac's dream. Management is there to hire people, and fire them., and prevent freakouts in both situations.

Tried that

[mergatoriod]

I suggested creating a chatroom for different interest groups 5 years ago and the idea was dismissed out of hand. I was working for a UK MOD contractor. It suprised me that management was so adverse to having employees discuss their opinions in an open forum, the benefits to me seemed to be that new starters would be able to search past posts to answer the questions that all new starters are afraid of asking. It seems to be related to the addage 'think a lot, say very little, write nothing'. The written word is very powerfull in influencing people and management prefer to be the only ones doing it, with memos and 'official' emails. Saying all that, another company I worked for did start a discussion forum, but it contained a forumn to talk to the director and each forumn was moderated by upper management which put most people off, most people preffered to stay under the radar of upper management and avoid appearing to 'rock the boat', posted but did allways feel as though I was identifying myself as a trouble maker.

Damn i've gone and done it again, now waiting for my P45, must not post, must not post, the urge is too strong...

In his novel Red Mars, Kim Stanley Robinson

[mooncrow]

puts forward something very similar to this -- as I recall, the scientific colonists on Mars change some of human society to better fit the new conditions they find on the red planet. The various research units organize into non-hierarchical collectives of just this sort. This book, along with its sequels Green Mars and Blue Mars are based on disrupting the last remains of Earth's feudal legacy: corporations.

Re:"Leaderless" Organizations

[Null_Void]

The thing about leadership is that it will always exist in one form or another. The difference here is that in companies, leadership is imposed artificially throughout the organization. If you had, say, an organization where decisions were made at their appropriate scope, and leadership emerged naturally (and with the buy-in of those around said leaders), well, we might not have so many people complaining about "leadership."

I, of course, haven't read the book you mentioned, so I'm not sure what it would have to say about the points I'm trying to make.

Step up to the bar

[Loundry]

If you want to sound less like a self-indulgent teenager, then I reccomend removing "WTF?" from your vocabularly.

Do you have someone who tells you to get up every morning? Tells you to brush your teeth?

This assumes that all of the decisions made across an organization of arbitrary size (say, 300,000 people) are as trivial as decisions of personal hygiene and individual discipline.

Moreover, does your "leader" at work give you every task you must accomplish?

That's not what the parent poster's question implies. No leader can give out every task, certainly. A good leader would expect that those he leads do not need to be micromanaged. Furthermore, I think what's more important than "Who assigns the tasks?" is "Who prioritizes the tasks?" The leader's job is often to remove the bullshit from the lives of those he leads so that they can do the jobs that they excel at. The reason why those being led can't do these jobs effectively is because they're often not privy (nor *should* they be!) to the politics that would keep them from doing their jobs.

There is no reason these functions...

snip. I think you believe this because you hate someone telling you what to do. I don't blame you -- I hate it, too! That doesn't mean that the functions performed by a "leader" (the use of that word is bordering on rhetoric, both pro and con) are unnecessary. Tell me, what is your experience in working in a large organization? I'm interested in your experiences both as a leader and as one working under a leader.

Re:"Leaderless" Organizations

[xero314]

If everyone possessed equal authority in that group, and determined that person A would "organize the workload," does that mean person A should also have the ability to hire and fire...to have the final say in every other aspect of the project...

The person determining the workload must be the one managing the resources they will be distributing the workload amoungst. If these are not the same person then you get the common problem that you have the wrong balance of resource. Also it is important that someone be authorized to make final decisions, to avoid deadlock amoungst employees. As an example I worked on a team with an employee who regularly refused to work on certain aspects simply because he thought it was the wrong way. He was very talented at his job but required that someone enforce what tasks he worked on. Many talented people are either unfocsed or head strong, which require they be managed to get the most out of them.

The rest of the above quote was removed because it relates to other corporate problems (like beleiving managers should be paid more than workers) so I left them out.

...those functions tend to be vested all in one person with relatively absolute authority, and that is what our culture has come to see as a "leader."There is no reason these powers must all rest in one person when they might just as easily be handed out among the group.

It seems that what you are saying, when it comes down to it, is not that there should be no leaders but a change in how leaders perform. This I agree with. There is a big difference between a good leader and a bad one. I think leaders need absolute authority, because when it comes down to it someone needs to be able to make final decisions. A good leader does not abuse absolute authority and takes the opinion of those he leads very seriously.

I personally would not what to share in responsibilty as you put it. As a worker I want to be able to do my job and not have to deal with politics. As a software engineer (go figure) I don't event want to deal with other entities in the company, like sales. A good manager makes sure I would not need to do these things. As a manager I would not want to be bogged down by labor, I want my most skilled workers doing those jobs and not a manager that only does them periodically.

This is a mater of seperation of responsibilty. As I said in my first post it's the perception that needs to change. Some thinking of managers as someone who controls your every action, but as a person who handles certian importatn jobs, such as making final decisions. There is in the corporate world always been an unnecessary contention between workers and management, but this does not have to be. Respect your manager and they might just respect you.

Re:"Leaderless" Organizations

[xero314]

If you had, say, an organization where decisions were made at their appropriate scope, and leadership emerged naturally

Leadership in companies does emerg naturally and is not imposed artificially. In nature, say amoungst animals, the strongs and most capable become leaders. How this strength is determined is not always the same thing. In a corporation people become leaders by being good at something, and yes that something may be kissing the right ass. Everyone in the group has the opportunity and this is natural. No company I have ever worked with chose leaders randomly. Sometimes bad leaders emerg, this even happens in in nature and some animal packs die out because of this. In general (not a hard and fast rule) if your leader is failing you, then you are somehow failing them. Make your manager look good and in most cases they will leave you alone and let you do your work. make your manager look bad and be prepaired to be micromanaged.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

What democracy? You mean popularity contest!

[Quietti]

Whether dealing with career Congress critters or with petty ass kissers at the job, the result is the same: it's a popularity contest, not a meritocracy. As such, I really don't care whether the company hierarchy is based upon old boys' network motivated management decisions or by a popularity contest among the proles in the department; workplace hierarchy is completely flawed and totally biased regardless.

First time...

[M-G]

Wow...I think that's the first time I've ever seen a GeoE referenced in a main page /. article...

Historical Parallel

[Anonymous Coward]

Once upon another tyranny, some fella complained to the "glorious leader" that his party local was grieviously mismanaged, etc. and that he himself and his guys would be so much better, more efficient, more daring, more really Loyal, and so on, and most of the boys supported him (the "plaintiff"?), but those guys were *real* klutzes... etc.

The "fearless leader" ignored him, at first. When the fellow got someone within his earshot to petition the "F.L." he replied : "If he's really that good, and has that much support he should already have *taken* command of the local." (Ol' "F.L." was quite the "Darwinist", you see - a real Lead, Follow or Get Out Of The Way, guy).

This sounds like a Digital version of the same situation. Doesn't it ?

From jousts in corrals to, er, well, pretty much the same. Oh well...

Dilbert and Schlumberger

[ClaudeB]

OK, so for the record, after taking a bow for the very nice comments a couple of people made about my role in the Eureka community initiative at Schlumberger, I need to say that the bosses were not infuriated by the Dilbert cartoon. When I showed the draft presentation to some people, they were concerned that it might be seen in a negative light. Of course, this just encouraged me to persist (you might as well have waved a red flag in front of a bull to tell it to stop). But I never, ever got any flak for using that drawing to symbolize the knowledge workers and their bosses.

In addition, the cartoon had Alice in it, and the lady who succeeded Henry Edmundson at the head of the community effort, Susan Rosenbaum, has an uncanny resemblance to Alice on a humid day (she has long curly hair). This part usually got the most laughs, primarily from her.

Susan certainly deserves a lot of the credit for the communities, which she took over from Henry. My co-leaders over the years added a lot of new ideas and are doing great (I stepped down last year, but I still try to help them). And the management of Schlumberger has been 150% supportive.

Re:Actually

[Loundry]

But I have worked in other, less hierarchical organizations (read: "leaderless") and I will tell you that they worked better; we got more done, better, in less time, on similar tasks.

Do you think that there might be other tasks in other industries that might benefit more from a hierarchical structure, or do you believe that your positive experiences in "leaderless" organizations necessarily translate to all other tasks in all other industries?

Schlumberger

[Engie_Viral]

My father worked for this company (he was a diesel mechanic). They have been doing all sorts of innovative stuff for decades. They are also a very diverse company. My father mostly worked for the oil drilling/exploration side of the company, but they also do electronics. They are trying to puch smartcards (like a credit card with a chip that is a replacement for notes and coins) in China (which is a facinating idea - I mean imagine the cost of producing currency for that many people!).

I am not sure of the reliability of my source on the following information, but I had heard that some of the founders of Intel either worked for Schlumberger or for one of the companies that they aquired (looks like they dropped the ball on that one!).