5 ms·

This BBC article is terrible and manipulates the reader via the omission of critical facts. If you haven't read it yet, I suggest you first read the company's

by jasode 10y ago

This BBC article is terrible and manipulates the reader via the omission of critical facts. If you haven't read it yet, I suggest you first read the company's recruitment webpage[1] and specifically their following sentence: - "It also means that there is no guaranteed salary. The only thing we guarantee is that you will have to pay a flat fee every month plus one-tenth of what you bill." After making a mental note of that, go read the BBC piece. You'll notice how empty that article actually is. For example, the following sentence becomes meaningless: - "Ultimately, the firm hopes that its way of working could inspire other companies to emulate the "Crisp DNA"." What "DNA" of Crisp exactly? The DNA of having employees pay the company to work instead of the other way around?!? Of course, the BBC article wants you to think "DNA" as in "no CEO" instead of "workers paying a rent". There's nothing wrong with that model (as another commenter mentioned doctors paying into a "group practice" for shared expenses such as an office and billing staff.) However, leaving that fee structure out is incompetent journalism. If workers are the ones paying the company, it's easier for them to agree not to have a CEO manage them. [1] Google's English translation of: https://www.crisp.se/om-crisp/jobba-pa-crisp https://www.crisp.se/om-crisp/jobba-pa-crisp

selectodude 10y ago
May as well go to cosmetology school for a year instead of getting a CS degree if you're going to work in asinine conditions like that. If I want to eat what I kill, I'd rather go make millions (or starve) on Wall Street. At least there's a base salary instead of a base rent.
- nickpsecurity 10y ago
  That's crazy you and I posted the same example at about the same time. Although, I have kinder thoughts about that market it seems. ;)
- PatentTroll 10y ago
  On the flip side, in a consultancy you as the developer get paid, what 1/2 to 1/3of your hourly rate? That 1/2 or 2/3 goes to cover expenses, and then the rest is profit for the owner.
nickpsecurity 10y ago
"There's nothing wrong with that model (as another commenter mentioned doctors paying into a "group practice" for shared expenses such as an office and billing staff.)" Another common one I've seen is hair stylists. They often rent their booth from the shop in exchange for equipment, pay processing, foot traffic especially, and so on. They get some cut of the base pricing plus tip money. Idea is they'll come out profitable on a regular basis despite paying to be there. Just another business expense really. " If workers are the ones paying the company, it's easier for them to agree not to have a CEO manage them." Testing the comparison again, this is also true for hair stylists. They're the ones who have to pay to be there and maximize their revenue. They'd rather be left alone to use whatever methods they can to keep customers happy, regular, and with high tips. Likewise for a consultancy where people renting space in the company would want to be flexible to maximize number of clients and revenue by targeting methods to each one's or each group's preferences. Both for hair stylists and IT consultants this take experimentation that might not happen in organizations with top-down management, esp micro-management.
- walshemj 10y ago
  But hairdressers are an outlier and have hideous medieval working conditions
  - cmdrfred 10y ago
    If a hairdresser has "hideous medieval working conditions" than a underwater welder, oil rig worker, or a line cook must be in the seventh circle of hell.
    - walshemj 10y ago
      two of those are highly paid and none of them pay the employer to work
  - nickpsecurity 10y ago
    Not the ones Ive met. You seriously should vote with your walley by getting a haircut at a place that treats their stylists better. :P
adzicg 10y ago
> The DNA of having employees pay the company to work instead of the other way around?!? Of course, the BBC article wants you to think "DNA" as in "no CEO" instead of "workers paying a rent". This is missing the point (full disclosure: I know several people working at Crisp and co-organise workshops with them in Sweden). I remember hearing Henrik Kniberg talk about this at Oredev a while ago, and we ended up restructuring our consultancy firm quite close to their model in 2013. The idea is that you don't work for the company, the company works for you. It's applicable to consultancies, where everyone effectively goes and earns money on their own, but some shared overhead (such as accountants, paperwork, getting master-services agreements with banks and insurance certificates so you can do business) can be effectively shared by everyone under the same umbrella. our model is not a 10% haircut, but that all shared costs are divided according to the proportion of revenue quarterly. the company also doesn't have a boss or anyone in charge (legally, in the UK, we have designated partners who are allowed to sign documents, but everyone has that right, so everyone is a boss and nobody is the Boss). Our company is also not allowed by the statute to have any assets or own any IP, that all belongs to individuals. This is to avoid any conflict of interest and people starting to 'work for the company' in the future. This model obviously wouldn't apply to companies trying to accumulate wealth/IP/assets and looking to create an exit by selling the company. But it works amazingly well if you want a lifestyle consulting business where everyone does their stuff. Edit: typos
- jasode 10y ago
  >This is missing the point You are missing the point of my comment. I wasn't disparaging Crisp nor passing negative judgement about their business model. (I compared it favorably to doctors contributing to a shared practice.) My critique is of the terrible writing in the BBC article which warps the situation to spin it into a story about "no CEO". In other words, Katie Hope wrote the BBC story such that the reader is manipulated into thinking this: - cause: "no CEO" --> effect: "better business" When the real cause&effect is this: - cause: "workers pay the company a rental fee" --> effect: "workers conclude they don't need a CEO boss" The more salient point is that the "workers pay fees to the shared company" and a downstream side effect is the "no CEO". Why do we not read about freelance hairstylists and doctors in group practices having "no CEO"?!? Because it's a non-story that would waste readers' time. The cause & effect is obvious there. >The idea is that you don't work for the company, the company works for you. It's applicable to consultancies, where everyone effectively goes and earns money on their own, Yes, I agree. Katie's journalism omitted this critical detail. Therefore, her subsequent paragraphs with contrasting quotes from Drew Houston (Dropbox) and Meg Whitman (Hewlett-Packard) are idiotic comparisons. Dropbox/HP are not consultancies where workers pay a royalty fee to work there.
andai 10y ago
In a typical company, earning a fixed monthly salary, you will end up paying the company the majority of the money you make for them, and the more value you produce the company, the less you earn by comparison (since in most companies your contribution is not immediately reflected in the salary and can be hard to measure). Flat fee + 10% of earnings seems very, very generous to me by comparison. But I do agree that was a very important detail left out of the article!
wagonman 10y ago
i have met some of these guys, my understanding is it is more like a group of consultants who pool together.

by jasode 10y ago

selectodude 10y ago

May as well go to cosmetology school for a year instead of getting a CS degree if you're going to work in asinine conditions like that. If I want to eat what I kill, I'd rather go make millions (or starve) on Wall Street. At least there's a base salary instead of a base rent.

nickpsecurity 10y ago
That's crazy you and I posted the same example at about the same time. Although, I have kinder thoughts about that market it seems. ;)
PatentTroll 10y ago
On the flip side, in a consultancy you as the developer get paid, what 1/2 to 1/3of your hourly rate? That 1/2 or 2/3 goes to cover expenses, and then the rest is profit for the owner.

nickpsecurity 10y ago

"There's nothing wrong with that model (as another commenter mentioned doctors paying into a "group practice" for shared expenses such as an office and billing staff.)" Another common one I've seen is hair stylists. They often rent their booth from the shop in exchange for equipment, pay processing, foot traffic especially, and so on. They get some cut of the base pricing plus tip money. Idea is they'll come out profitable on a regular basis despite paying to be there. Just another business expense really. " If workers are the ones paying the company, it's easier for them to agree not to have a CEO manage them." Testing the comparison again, this is also true for hair stylists. They're the ones who have to pay to be there and maximize their revenue. They'd rather be left alone to use whatever methods they can to keep customers happy, regular, and with high tips. Likewise for a consultancy where people renting space in the company would want to be flexible to maximize number of clients and revenue by targeting methods to each one's or each group's preferences. Both for hair stylists and IT consultants this take experimentation that might not happen in organizations with top-down management, esp micro-management.

walshemj 10y ago
But hairdressers are an outlier and have hideous medieval working conditions
- cmdrfred 10y ago
  If a hairdresser has "hideous medieval working conditions" than a underwater welder, oil rig worker, or a line cook must be in the seventh circle of hell.
  - walshemj 10y ago
    two of those are highly paid and none of them pay the employer to work
- nickpsecurity 10y ago
  Not the ones Ive met. You seriously should vote with your walley by getting a haircut at a place that treats their stylists better. :P

adzicg 10y ago

> The DNA of having employees pay the company to work instead of the other way around?!? Of course, the BBC article wants you to think "DNA" as in "no CEO" instead of "workers paying a rent". This is missing the point (full disclosure: I know several people working at Crisp and co-organise workshops with them in Sweden). I remember hearing Henrik Kniberg talk about this at Oredev a while ago, and we ended up restructuring our consultancy firm quite close to their model in 2013. The idea is that you don't work for the company, the company works for you. It's applicable to consultancies, where everyone effectively goes and earns money on their own, but some shared overhead (such as accountants, paperwork, getting master-services agreements with banks and insurance certificates so you can do business) can be effectively shared by everyone under the same umbrella. our model is not a 10% haircut, but that all shared costs are divided according to the proportion of revenue quarterly. the company also doesn't have a boss or anyone in charge (legally, in the UK, we have designated partners who are allowed to sign documents, but everyone has that right, so everyone is a boss and nobody is the Boss). Our company is also not allowed by the statute to have any assets or own any IP, that all belongs to individuals. This is to avoid any conflict of interest and people starting to 'work for the company' in the future. This model obviously wouldn't apply to companies trying to accumulate wealth/IP/assets and looking to create an exit by selling the company. But it works amazingly well if you want a lifestyle consulting business where everyone does their stuff. Edit: typos

jasode 10y ago
>This is missing the point You are missing the point of my comment. I wasn't disparaging Crisp nor passing negative judgement about their business model. (I compared it favorably to doctors contributing to a shared practice.) My critique is of the terrible writing in the BBC article which warps the situation to spin it into a story about "no CEO". In other words, Katie Hope wrote the BBC story such that the reader is manipulated into thinking this: - cause: "no CEO" --> effect: "better business" When the real cause&effect is this: - cause: "workers pay the company a rental fee" --> effect: "workers conclude they don't need a CEO boss" The more salient point is that the "workers pay fees to the shared company" and a downstream side effect is the "no CEO". Why do we not read about freelance hairstylists and doctors in group practices having "no CEO"?!? Because it's a non-story that would waste readers' time. The cause & effect is obvious there. >The idea is that you don't work for the company, the company works for you. It's applicable to consultancies, where everyone effectively goes and earns money on their own, Yes, I agree. Katie's journalism omitted this critical detail. Therefore, her subsequent paragraphs with contrasting quotes from Drew Houston (Dropbox) and Meg Whitman (Hewlett-Packard) are idiotic comparisons. Dropbox/HP are not consultancies where workers pay a royalty fee to work there.

andai 10y ago

In a typical company, earning a fixed monthly salary, you will end up paying the company the majority of the money you make for them, and the more value you produce the company, the less you earn by comparison (since in most companies your contribution is not immediately reflected in the salary and can be hard to measure). Flat fee + 10% of earnings seems very, very generous to me by comparison. But I do agree that was a very important detail left out of the article!

wagonman 10y ago

i have met some of these guys, my understanding is it is more like a group of consultants who pool together.