6 ms·

> Decision-making in cooperatives can be very daunting for beginners. Having 13 years+ of experience in cooperatives I can tell you that it is daunting even fo

> Decision-making in cooperatives can be very daunting for beginners. Having 13 years+ of experience in cooperatives I can tell you that it is daunting even for old-timers. We started off with most decisions being made in weekly meeting (that sometimes dragged on for most of the day), and ended up with having monthly meetings for the large decisions, but weekly meetings in smaller groups instead. In short, meetings everywhere, about all things large and small. Meetings about whether to have consensus or majority rule, about whether the principle that everyone needs to follow a decision is sound etc etc. Personality might have something to do with it. But making fast about turns that you sometimes need to do in a business setting is nigh impossible, which is actually hazardous to everyone in the cooperative. This might even be the primary reason cooperatives (being an old idea) hasn't survived other than as a fringe phenomena.

Jensson 4y ago
> But making fast about turns that you sometimes need to do in a business setting is nigh impossible, which is actually hazardous to everyone in the cooperative. This might even be the primary reason cooperatives (being an old idea) hasn't survived other than as a fringe phenomena. There are large cooperatives, but only in "solved" industries so there aren't many hard decisions left to make. Programming is not one of those fields yet.
- adwn 4y ago
  You think that there are no hard business decisions to make in established – i.e., non-software – industries? It's just smooth sailing along predefined routes?
dogma1138 4y ago
This is a common mistake, actual functioning cooperatives operate like any other enterprise with an set executive structure a CEO and a board of directors. The big difference is the ownership model so shareholder meetings are basically employee meetings so a successful cooperative simply runs like any other business just one where the employees are treated as the shareholders they are when it comes to decision making the bad ones are the ones trying to run like a commune and reach a consensus on everything.
- bluesign 4y ago
  So it is little worse than unions done good.
  - Shoue 4y ago
    That's an odd critique considering coops exist to solve the friction between unions and businesses by building the democratic control into the business itself, avoiding the need for a union. Especially when you consider all the union busting tactics used by leadership at traditional businesses – how are you even supposed to form a union when they won't let you? Coops come at that from a different angle: you get democratic control, straight up. Don't like your leadership if you choose to structure the business that way? You can actually vote them out of their role.
    - sokoloff 4y ago
      https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/what-we-do/conduct-elections https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/what-we-do/conduct-elections If you have broad support from the employee base, “they” can’t block a union certification election. If you’re having trouble forming a union, you’re probably struggling at the “get employees to want your union” step in the process.
      - sofixa 4y ago
        You should let Amazon, Starbucks, Walmart and similar know this. Their union busting tactics are widely documented (including shutting down locations starting to form a union).
        sokoloff 4y ago
        They do know this. Many of their tactics are specifically directed at “make the employees not want the union”. Some of those tactics are under-handed, even despicable, but it’s safe to say that they know this and act in accordance.
fimdomeio 4y ago
My personal theory (I don't think it is very popular amongst my fellow coops) is that co-ops need well defined hierarchies that have the power to take a lot of decisions and the dutty to report on the decisions taken and the resoning behind it but with that also well defined rules to make sure power changes hands via democratic processes every x amount of years.
- replygirl 4y ago
  check out sociocracy
- onphonenow 4y ago
  Or check out esops or employee owned companies - they don’t have same egalitarian approach - but often run more like a business
- AstralStorm 4y ago
  Your personal theory has what backing? Care to share why you think hierarchy is necessary? The only semi-valid reason to have a hierarchy in a cooperative is to optimize voting and reduce meetings. That would be less necessary if your cooperative runs in a more digital way and concerns of various members are known ahead of time. Otherwise hierarchical cooperatives can be literally corrupted by the hierarchy or sold out, turning them into an almost regular company with board of shareholders.
karmakurtisaani 4y ago
Does it have to always involve everyone? Why not vote for the CEO or board of directors once every couple of years?
- ankaAr 4y ago
  I know coops that hire the CEO as An external guy. I saw that in many restaurants owned by their staff.
rapsey 4y ago
Sounds like an awful work environment then.
goodpoint 4y ago
That's just your experience. Many coops are run pretty efficiently.
- onphonenow 4y ago
  Berkeley which was a major area for co-ops have almost none left. My family was part of a co-op. Challenges: Often very political - seen as a good thing but can add conflict (ie divesting/not stocking/opposing apartheid Israel while some members are Jewish). No x because y etc - repeat for many topics. Decision making - both hard and strong feelings internally- can lead to claims around “violent” communication, micro aggression, privilege, disrespect etc etc when there are disagreements. Coops will say a good thing, but I think can wear people out sometimes. Accountability/performance mgmt. not always, but sometimes difficult to take action in this area - maybe a good thing - goal is to work together. One interesting variant are employee owned businesses that do not run as co-ops. ESOPS etc. I’m not an expert at all, but I think there are a number of really industrial scale businesses that have this structure successfully.
mihaaly 4y ago
I am unsure if fast turns is a thing of hierarchical organizations, especially the successful ones, what I see that the bigger (some say more successful) it is the slower it turns. Period. Also it's will to turn is lower by getting bigger, trying to stick to past success and methods as much as pussible because every change is constly and every change is risky, and the members don't want to risk the livelyhood of their family, rightfully. When have a choice then will rather not turn but go straight when it is big. I admit some big turn very quick, like Elon Musk with Twitter, but thats the other wrong end of the scale, finding the balance is not easy and most of the time unsuccessful except for a short period. And those could be attributed to luck in many many cases too. We remember the success stories not the failures (except the huge ones) and being sentimental with those being successful and gone. Big organizations' success come and go, rare to shine more than several decade and could die easily if the decisions are wrong (or forget to make decisions). How is their decision making is better then if they go away or fall? They grow quick, then comes an other due to the constant need for competition and the old one goes or falls back. The need for quick decisions and neckbraking pace is actually fuelled with quick decisions and neckbraking race of the organizations themselves and call it business setting if that was not their making but some kind of external condition. Also not always (or rarely) turn to a direction that is good for a society and not just for those very few being in the position of making the decision (mostly it is coincidental or side effect then). Also success of a hierarchical organization does not necessarily mean it is making any good for customers and people but just being big enough to force its views and interests on others. That's not really success and good then just a social form of violence. Decisions are not easy when it affects lots of people and that's why those should be made as carefully as possible in the settings available and we know from social studies, it is proven, that individual decision making is quick, group decision making is accurate, in overall. For the group of people in the long run group decisions was better. As a side effect it was not making life unbearably quick by themselves and may eliminate the need for some of the quick decisions (some, as there are aspects outside of human groups that mandate actions, those cannot be eliminated). Mostly philosophizing above.
- onphonenow 4y ago
  Interesting - so in your view Elon as the top person in Twitter hierarchy will not be able to change Twitter except very slowly ?
throwawaaarrgh 4y ago
"Too many meetings" is a problem many companies have. It's an efficiency problem. There are ways to reduce or even eliminate too many meetings.
pessimizer 4y ago
There's something to be said for representative democracy. I want to work in something like a cooperative, but I don't want to be constantly engaged in managing it. I'd rather assign my vote to someone who seems like they have their head on straight, and get a monthly email that tells me what's been going on lately. Maybe like how pure hierarchical capitalists need a fairly large financial industry to handle the movement of wagers and prizes between investors and producers, a flatter system might need a big and active enough group of secretaries/reporters to keep everybody so informed about internal decision-making and events that normal members don't feel like they have to attend meetings. It's really a privilege of power not to have to explain yourself. A flatter system might have to dedicate a standing portion of its efforts to explaining itself.

Jensson 4y ago

> But making fast about turns that you sometimes need to do in a business setting is nigh impossible, which is actually hazardous to everyone in the cooperative. This might even be the primary reason cooperatives (being an old idea) hasn't survived other than as a fringe phenomena. There are large cooperatives, but only in "solved" industries so there aren't many hard decisions left to make. Programming is not one of those fields yet.

adwn 4y ago
You think that there are no hard business decisions to make in established – i.e., non-software – industries? It's just smooth sailing along predefined routes?

dogma1138 4y ago

This is a common mistake, actual functioning cooperatives operate like any other enterprise with an set executive structure a CEO and a board of directors. The big difference is the ownership model so shareholder meetings are basically employee meetings so a successful cooperative simply runs like any other business just one where the employees are treated as the shareholders they are when it comes to decision making the bad ones are the ones trying to run like a commune and reach a consensus on everything.

bluesign 4y ago
So it is little worse than unions done good.
- Shoue 4y ago
  That's an odd critique considering coops exist to solve the friction between unions and businesses by building the democratic control into the business itself, avoiding the need for a union. Especially when you consider all the union busting tactics used by leadership at traditional businesses – how are you even supposed to form a union when they won't let you? Coops come at that from a different angle: you get democratic control, straight up. Don't like your leadership if you choose to structure the business that way? You can actually vote them out of their role.
  - sokoloff 4y ago
    https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/what-we-do/conduct-elections https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/what-we-do/conduct-elections If you have broad support from the employee base, “they” can’t block a union certification election. If you’re having trouble forming a union, you’re probably struggling at the “get employees to want your union” step in the process.
    - sofixa 4y ago
      You should let Amazon, Starbucks, Walmart and similar know this. Their union busting tactics are widely documented (including shutting down locations starting to form a union).
      - sokoloff 4y ago
        They do know this. Many of their tactics are specifically directed at “make the employees not want the union”. Some of those tactics are under-handed, even despicable, but it’s safe to say that they know this and act in accordance.

fimdomeio 4y ago

My personal theory (I don't think it is very popular amongst my fellow coops) is that co-ops need well defined hierarchies that have the power to take a lot of decisions and the dutty to report on the decisions taken and the resoning behind it but with that also well defined rules to make sure power changes hands via democratic processes every x amount of years.

replygirl 4y ago
check out sociocracy
onphonenow 4y ago
Or check out esops or employee owned companies - they don’t have same egalitarian approach - but often run more like a business
AstralStorm 4y ago
Your personal theory has what backing? Care to share why you think hierarchy is necessary? The only semi-valid reason to have a hierarchy in a cooperative is to optimize voting and reduce meetings. That would be less necessary if your cooperative runs in a more digital way and concerns of various members are known ahead of time. Otherwise hierarchical cooperatives can be literally corrupted by the hierarchy or sold out, turning them into an almost regular company with board of shareholders.

karmakurtisaani 4y ago

Does it have to always involve everyone? Why not vote for the CEO or board of directors once every couple of years?

ankaAr 4y ago
I know coops that hire the CEO as An external guy. I saw that in many restaurants owned by their staff.

rapsey 4y ago

Sounds like an awful work environment then.

goodpoint 4y ago

That's just your experience. Many coops are run pretty efficiently.

onphonenow 4y ago
Berkeley which was a major area for co-ops have almost none left. My family was part of a co-op. Challenges: Often very political - seen as a good thing but can add conflict (ie divesting/not stocking/opposing apartheid Israel while some members are Jewish). No x because y etc - repeat for many topics. Decision making - both hard and strong feelings internally- can lead to claims around “violent” communication, micro aggression, privilege, disrespect etc etc when there are disagreements. Coops will say a good thing, but I think can wear people out sometimes. Accountability/performance mgmt. not always, but sometimes difficult to take action in this area - maybe a good thing - goal is to work together. One interesting variant are employee owned businesses that do not run as co-ops. ESOPS etc. I’m not an expert at all, but I think there are a number of really industrial scale businesses that have this structure successfully.

mihaaly 4y ago

I am unsure if fast turns is a thing of hierarchical organizations, especially the successful ones, what I see that the bigger (some say more successful) it is the slower it turns. Period. Also it's will to turn is lower by getting bigger, trying to stick to past success and methods as much as pussible because every change is constly and every change is risky, and the members don't want to risk the livelyhood of their family, rightfully. When have a choice then will rather not turn but go straight when it is big. I admit some big turn very quick, like Elon Musk with Twitter, but thats the other wrong end of the scale, finding the balance is not easy and most of the time unsuccessful except for a short period. And those could be attributed to luck in many many cases too. We remember the success stories not the failures (except the huge ones) and being sentimental with those being successful and gone. Big organizations' success come and go, rare to shine more than several decade and could die easily if the decisions are wrong (or forget to make decisions). How is their decision making is better then if they go away or fall? They grow quick, then comes an other due to the constant need for competition and the old one goes or falls back. The need for quick decisions and neckbraking pace is actually fuelled with quick decisions and neckbraking race of the organizations themselves and call it business setting if that was not their making but some kind of external condition. Also not always (or rarely) turn to a direction that is good for a society and not just for those very few being in the position of making the decision (mostly it is coincidental or side effect then). Also success of a hierarchical organization does not necessarily mean it is making any good for customers and people but just being big enough to force its views and interests on others. That's not really success and good then just a social form of violence. Decisions are not easy when it affects lots of people and that's why those should be made as carefully as possible in the settings available and we know from social studies, it is proven, that individual decision making is quick, group decision making is accurate, in overall. For the group of people in the long run group decisions was better. As a side effect it was not making life unbearably quick by themselves and may eliminate the need for some of the quick decisions (some, as there are aspects outside of human groups that mandate actions, those cannot be eliminated). Mostly philosophizing above.

onphonenow 4y ago
Interesting - so in your view Elon as the top person in Twitter hierarchy will not be able to change Twitter except very slowly ?

throwawaaarrgh 4y ago

"Too many meetings" is a problem many companies have. It's an efficiency problem. There are ways to reduce or even eliminate too many meetings.

pessimizer 4y ago

There's something to be said for representative democracy. I want to work in something like a cooperative, but I don't want to be constantly engaged in managing it. I'd rather assign my vote to someone who seems like they have their head on straight, and get a monthly email that tells me what's been going on lately. Maybe like how pure hierarchical capitalists need a fairly large financial industry to handle the movement of wagers and prizes between investors and producers, a flatter system might need a big and active enough group of secretaries/reporters to keep everybody so informed about internal decision-making and events that normal members don't feel like they have to attend meetings. It's really a privilege of power not to have to explain yourself. A flatter system might have to dedicate a standing portion of its efforts to explaining itself.