Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
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.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
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.
You are not the customer.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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' ?
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.
--
make install -not war
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 might want to learn a thing or to about history.
A Brazilian company that has been democratic for 20 years, and a book review (with excerpt).
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.
Seeing bad movies only encourages them. Watch responsibly
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...
Ok, this story wasn't posted by CmdrTaco... /.
/. 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)...
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
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
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.
Deconstruct the State
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.
Tsunami -- You can't bring a good wave down!
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.
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.
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!"??
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.
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.
--
make install -not war
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?
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.
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.
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 based on user account deletion
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
Software is not supposed to be about how to work around a useability issue. - Ken Barber