5 ms·

> 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" inst

by 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.
PatentTroll 10y ago
This is how law firms work. In that sense, this is more like a partnership than a corporation.
- alkonaut 10y ago
  So law firms, barber shops and software consultants can have a no CEO organization. Full news at 11.
walshemj 10y ago
Until you have a bad contract and you get sued
- adzicg 10y ago
  the company does not have any assets so there's nothing to take from a court loss.
  - walshemj 10y ago
    so you get sued as a partnership /individual which is likely to make them untractive to do business with
    - adzicg 10y ago
      the LLP is limited liability, and unless in a case of criminal negligence that cannot be broken, so it's difficult to go after individuals. This model depends on working with people you trust not to be criminals, and as I mentioned above works only for relatively small consultancies where everyone can be trusted. in terms of 'make them untractive to do business with', since the company was restructured in this way we worked with some of the worlds largest investment banks, big telecoms companies, and a ton of other parties that require a lot of paperwork. nobody seemed to mind that we're structured this way or find us unattractive to work with.
      - walshemj 10y ago
        I suppose that might work if you just a body shop rather than actually delivering something tangible. I have had bad experiences with clients acting in bad faith destroying one of the companies I worked for
        adzicg 10y ago
        one nice aspect of being a small company that doesn't chase assets is that you can choose who you work with, and don't have to accept jobs just to keep employees working. generally if someone is too much hassle that shows early on and we just don't work with them.

by adzicg 10y ago

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.

PatentTroll 10y ago

This is how law firms work. In that sense, this is more like a partnership than a corporation.

alkonaut 10y ago
So law firms, barber shops and software consultants can have a no CEO organization. Full news at 11.

walshemj 10y ago

Until you have a bad contract and you get sued

adzicg 10y ago
the company does not have any assets so there's nothing to take from a court loss.
- walshemj 10y ago
  so you get sued as a partnership /individual which is likely to make them untractive to do business with
  - adzicg 10y ago
    the LLP is limited liability, and unless in a case of criminal negligence that cannot be broken, so it's difficult to go after individuals. This model depends on working with people you trust not to be criminals, and as I mentioned above works only for relatively small consultancies where everyone can be trusted. in terms of 'make them untractive to do business with', since the company was restructured in this way we worked with some of the worlds largest investment banks, big telecoms companies, and a ton of other parties that require a lot of paperwork. nobody seemed to mind that we're structured this way or find us unattractive to work with.
    - walshemj 10y ago
      I suppose that might work if you just a body shop rather than actually delivering something tangible. I have had bad experiences with clients acting in bad faith destroying one of the companies I worked for
      - adzicg 10y ago
        one nice aspect of being a small company that doesn't chase assets is that you can choose who you work with, and don't have to accept jobs just to keep employees working. generally if someone is too much hassle that shows early on and we just don't work with them.