4 ms·

Let's say a "friend" of mine works for a company of about 100 people. There would be clear lines of demarcation between departments, management, and responsibi

Let's say a "friend" of mine works for a company of about 100 people. There would be clear lines of demarcation between departments, management, and responsibility but that is not what ownership wants. Instead they run a flat system where the patriarch (of the family that owns the company): * bypasses all "managers" to assign tasks direct to the employee * never has a meeting asking for suggested fixes, just what he thinks he should do * will not support any directives not thought up by him This is not standard "every office" has this paranoia. My friend has a long history of employment and they know the difference. The problem is that they grew to care about the rest of the staff. My friend fancies himself the protector and even for a time was |---| close to heading up company operations. Nevertheless, it never happened. My point is that the company is ripe for just such a mutiny. People are unable to do their jobs effectively and it's caused such a turtling effect that nobody wants to stick their neck out anymore. But a mutiny wouldn't help, would it? Would it? All my friend can see is more divisiveness separating the ownership from the employees who are already treated as a line in the expense ledger. If the owner could, he'd do everyone's job and he'd do it better than they could. A mutiny would do nothing more than to reinforce that he thinks people have a bad attitude, as opposed to realizing one exists because of the situation. Everyone where my friend works want to see the company continue to succeed. But what incentive is there for people to care when you are treated as if your input is meaningless?

profpjm 14y ago
great comment. mutiny was viewed extremely differently in the age of discovery, even positively. seafarers were extremely clever about it and so were leaders. it is possible to depose authority in a setting like you describe but not via the current dominant view or what it means to depose authority. a mutiny, done very strategically, can be constructive. but it needs to flow from the culture of the organization in which it occurs.
- ChikkaChiChi 14y ago
  Yes! Recently an outside corporate executive from a competitor was brought on board and the first thing he marvelled at was the lack of any sort of culture the place had. To him, it felt more like a gas station than the hip place he had come from. The company is in a very "young" niche (extreme sports retail) so to see something more akin to a 70's office pool blew his mind.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
ChuckMcM 14y ago
Interesting comment, you are thinking too much "inside the box" though. There is the kind of mutiny (which is common in Silicon Valley) where a strategic chunk of the "crew" (aka the employess) believe in the goal but not the management and so they leave as a group to re-create the same enterprise they are in, but with a better (for them) management structure. This sort of strategic mutiny is made possible in California by its employee friendly laws which make "non-compete" clauses unenforceable and ownership claims over work the employee does outside the office difficult. In the case of a small company, strategic mutinies like this can be fatal to the original company because often times expertise is concentrated into a single individual. When management is aware of that, it is sometimes possible to 'mutiny in place' where a meeting with management is held where the choice is provided to change or potentially lose the entire company. Such mutinies have a somewhat more checkered outcome of the ones I've been aware of (two succeeded and three "failed" in that the strategic group ended up walking out anyway). In larger companies a group of 10 - 15 folks can walk out and cause pain but not a mortal wound to the parent company.
- walshemj 14y ago
  Yes the traitorous 8 forming fairchild is a classic example from SV's past
- ChikkaChiChi 14y ago
  Couldn't agree more. Unfortunately for the situation stated, the startup capital involved is more significant since they are an online retailer in a very popular, but very expensive hobby. In this case, I think a mutiny is far less likely because the valuation of talent is far less than its true worth. In this case, the staff just needs to win back their own confidence that they are good enough to find a place where they may be appreciated more as opposed to teaching an old dog new tricks.
brown9-2 14y ago
A corporate mutiny needs to be able to appeal to someone in authority to remove the problematic employee/manager. If the problem is the owner, you have no one above them to appeal to - your only hope is to convince the owner to step aside or suddenly transform from as you describe a very active role to a very passive one. The chances of success here sound incredibly low.

profpjm 14y ago

great comment. mutiny was viewed extremely differently in the age of discovery, even positively. seafarers were extremely clever about it and so were leaders. it is possible to depose authority in a setting like you describe but not via the current dominant view or what it means to depose authority. a mutiny, done very strategically, can be constructive. but it needs to flow from the culture of the organization in which it occurs.

ChikkaChiChi 14y ago
Yes! Recently an outside corporate executive from a competitor was brought on board and the first thing he marvelled at was the lack of any sort of culture the place had. To him, it felt more like a gas station than the hip place he had come from. The company is in a very "young" niche (extreme sports retail) so to see something more akin to a 70's office pool blew his mind.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

ChuckMcM 14y ago

Interesting comment, you are thinking too much "inside the box" though. There is the kind of mutiny (which is common in Silicon Valley) where a strategic chunk of the "crew" (aka the employess) believe in the goal but not the management and so they leave as a group to re-create the same enterprise they are in, but with a better (for them) management structure. This sort of strategic mutiny is made possible in California by its employee friendly laws which make "non-compete" clauses unenforceable and ownership claims over work the employee does outside the office difficult. In the case of a small company, strategic mutinies like this can be fatal to the original company because often times expertise is concentrated into a single individual. When management is aware of that, it is sometimes possible to 'mutiny in place' where a meeting with management is held where the choice is provided to change or potentially lose the entire company. Such mutinies have a somewhat more checkered outcome of the ones I've been aware of (two succeeded and three "failed" in that the strategic group ended up walking out anyway). In larger companies a group of 10 - 15 folks can walk out and cause pain but not a mortal wound to the parent company.

walshemj 14y ago
Yes the traitorous 8 forming fairchild is a classic example from SV's past
ChikkaChiChi 14y ago
Couldn't agree more. Unfortunately for the situation stated, the startup capital involved is more significant since they are an online retailer in a very popular, but very expensive hobby. In this case, I think a mutiny is far less likely because the valuation of talent is far less than its true worth. In this case, the staff just needs to win back their own confidence that they are good enough to find a place where they may be appreciated more as opposed to teaching an old dog new tricks.

brown9-2 14y ago

A corporate mutiny needs to be able to appeal to someone in authority to remove the problematic employee/manager. If the problem is the owner, you have no one above them to appeal to - your only hope is to convince the owner to step aside or suddenly transform from as you describe a very active role to a very passive one. The chances of success here sound incredibly low.