Working for employee owned company?
- Thread starter Milzy
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Drago
Legendary Member
- Location
- Suburban Poshshire
Depends on so, so many things.
MacB
Lover of things that come in 3's
- Location
- Farnborough, Hampshire
Worker owned co-ops have a pretty good track record, Mondragon is the most famous that I know. Here I'd guess at John Lewis being the best known, though it isn't the same set up. I've read the history of JL and it makes fascinating reading, later changes seem to have moved it further and further from the founders vision.
KnackeredBike
I do my own stunts
As @Drago says could mean anything.
I worked as a manager for one for a year. I got really good results but ultimately there were too many chiefs and not enough Indians. It became impossible to do anything without attending meetings going into the early hours, and they had no knowledge or interest in really crucial documents like cash flow forecasts.
Plus you can't discipline anyone because they will just run to an old friend now owner who will give them a shoulder to cry on rather than back you up.
The final straw for me was when i had to go to a reconciliation day because i tried to fire someone who was swapping company property for cheaper ones and selling the original on eBay, and also working full time elsewhere whilst on paid sick leave.
That said, I am quite prepared yo believe that some employee-owners are very switched on and hard working. But I'm not sure how you can tell the difference before burning bridges.
I worked as a manager for one for a year. I got really good results but ultimately there were too many chiefs and not enough Indians. It became impossible to do anything without attending meetings going into the early hours, and they had no knowledge or interest in really crucial documents like cash flow forecasts.
Plus you can't discipline anyone because they will just run to an old friend now owner who will give them a shoulder to cry on rather than back you up.
The final straw for me was when i had to go to a reconciliation day because i tried to fire someone who was swapping company property for cheaper ones and selling the original on eBay, and also working full time elsewhere whilst on paid sick leave.
That said, I am quite prepared yo believe that some employee-owners are very switched on and hard working. But I'm not sure how you can tell the difference before burning bridges.
GrumpyGregry
Here for rides.
if bought out three generations ago, good.
else, bad.
else, bad.
OP
OP
Milzy
Guru
This is what I fear but care to elaborate??
GrumpyGregry
Here for rides.
ime if the founders, their offspring or their offspring's offspring are still around they are revered out of all proportion to their ability and themselves believe that they bestride the business like a modern-day Colossus.
Nothing much to add apart from more 'it depends'.
Between about 1999 and 2009 I worked for a small IT business owned by two chaps. They sold out to an employee owned business and I worked under that regime for about a year. On the whole they were pretty good but, like Animal Farm, some employees were more equal than others. I left while the business was still growing strongly and it's true that the employees did get a good share of that success. In the years since I left, the market for their offering contracted and things have reverted to a more traditional, top-down centralised organisation. Though nominally still employee owned, it operates essentially as a bog-standard PLC.
Between about 1999 and 2009 I worked for a small IT business owned by two chaps. They sold out to an employee owned business and I worked under that regime for about a year. On the whole they were pretty good but, like Animal Farm, some employees were more equal than others. I left while the business was still growing strongly and it's true that the employees did get a good share of that success. In the years since I left, the market for their offering contracted and things have reverted to a more traditional, top-down centralised organisation. Though nominally still employee owned, it operates essentially as a bog-standard PLC.
OP
OP
Milzy
Guru
The great thing about our multi national limited company is people can leach off the company and are almost untouchable. The managers walk past people tossing it off because it's not them paying their wages. Although it's not that great after years go by and nobody cares. The atmosphere just becomes poor and toxic. The big big bosses have no clue about what actually goes on.
MacB
Lover of things that come in 3's
- Location
- Farnborough, Hampshire
I know a bit on this general subject as I've been a long time follower of Richard D Wolff an economics professor that specialises in Marxism. He is a very keen proponent of worker co-ops and has done detailed analysis of several with a lot of time on Mondragon. He does weekly and monthly podcasts all available on youtube via Democracy at Work. The first thing I would point out is that there are many different ways to structure a co-op so, even if you've worked for one, it's impossible to make generalisations on small samples. Greg rightly points out the dangers of nepotism but I associated his comment more with family owned than worker owned enterprises.
I'm not going to post war and peace but if anyone is interested then I really would recommend those podcasts...yes that's what I do for fun I'm just that sort of party guy. If you're familiar with economics and terminology his delivery can be a bit slow and laboured but this is because he aims for maximum audience accessibility rather than to try and show off.
I'm not going to post war and peace but if anyone is interested then I really would recommend those podcasts...yes that's what I do for fun I'm just that sort of party guy. If you're familiar with economics and terminology his delivery can be a bit slow and laboured but this is because he aims for maximum audience accessibility rather than to try and show off.
Globalti
Legendary Member
My colleagues and I all have shares in our employer and I think it's highly motivating; when you become a shareholder you undergo a subtle re-wire of the brain, a bit like the way Mother Nature rewires your brain when you become a parent. I wouldn't say I've become more aggressive commercially but I've become much more selective about what I'm prepared to commit the company to and more prepared to turn down opportunities if they are not in our area of technical expertise or commercially interesting. The company is well managed and we seldom hold meetings; everybody knows their job and gets on with it competently.
swee'pea99
Squire
What is the company like? Is it good/competitive at what it does, and is 'what it does' the kind of thing that lends itself to good communal effort (as opposed to individual brilliance)?
What are the employees like? Are they good at what they do, do they enjoy doing it, and do they enjoy and respect their colleagues?
Many yeses, looking good; any nos, caution may be advisable.
What are the employees like? Are they good at what they do, do they enjoy doing it, and do they enjoy and respect their colleagues?
Many yeses, looking good; any nos, caution may be advisable.
srw
It's a bit more complicated than that...
Depends on the company and the individual. I have shares and I don't think it makes a difference, although I am senior and quite influential in this country (at least for another fortnight). My part of the company is completely immaterial to the whole, which is something like the 37th largest in the world by revenue. And I'm not really motivated by personal gain over and above what I already have.
The largest part of my gains out of my shareholdings has come from a tanking UK economy and currency - the shares are denominated in Euros. So thanks to the 37%. You buggered the country but made me richer.
