Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

No CEO: A Swedish company where nobody is in charge

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 113 posts

Re: No CEO: A Swedish company where nobody is in charge

#21

Post by neolefty »

gaius wrote: post #4

Someone is always in charge. They've just decided not to write down the org chart on paper, is all.

They've written it down -- it's the board for big things and "shared among other employees" for others. It actually sounds pretty practical to me. As people become more responsible and self-regulating, there's less need for a single person to be in charge in a hierarchical sense.

> The staff decided that many of the chief executive's responsibilities overlapped with those of the board, while other roles could be shared among other employees.

Re: No CEO: A Swedish company where nobody is in charge

#22

Post by RubenSandwich »

whack wrote: post #19

It's worth keeping in mind that this is a company of 40 people. Half the size of most primitive hunter-gatherer tribes which had no formal organization whatsoever. At sizes that small, everyone knows each other, everyone knows what everyone else is doing, and people can make decisions through consensus after a round of informal discussions. The problems only start once the "tribe" grows beyond 150. That's when the nu…

Agreed. I've noticed that organizations that often times claim to be 'leaderless', just have other implicit ways of exerting power and influence. Truly leaderless is difficult, and requires humility from all it's members.

Re: No CEO: A Swedish company where nobody is in charge

#23

Post by jasode »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #15

Is this just a workers cooperative, or is there a distinction I'm not seeing?

It's not a workers cooperative (shared ownership). The consultants seem more analogous to hair stylists renting booth space at a hair salon. Based on Google's English translation of the Swedish recruitment page[1], it says:

- "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."

That fee structure makes the BBC article superficial and misleading. Yes, if every worker is not paid a regular paycheck, it doesn't seem like a breakthrough innovation in business organization theory to not have a CEO boss them around.

They make the headline about "no CEO" but omit any relevant details such as how workers are compensated.

[1] https://www.crisp.se/om-crisp/jobba-pa-crisp

Re: No CEO: A Swedish company where nobody is in charge

#24

Post by ptaipale »

krzyk wrote: post #14
ptaipale wrote: post #10

I wonder what happens when the first trouble comes with an accusation of harassment, discrimination or some such thing. How will you defend the company, who will speak for it, and who takes the personal hit that eventually comes?

When did any CEO take personal hit for the company? It usually is quite the opposite, company takes the hit for CEO. And a funny quote, from 1911s The Devils' Dicitonary: Corporation - noun: an ingenious device for attaining individual profit without individual responsibility.

Many times. There's one fairly high-profile case going on where I live just now.

Devil's Dictionary is funny but things don't completely work that way.

Re: No CEO: A Swedish company where nobody is in charge

#25

Post by thenomad »

gaius wrote: post #4

Someone is always in charge. They've just decided not to write down the org chart on paper, is all.

"Witches... certainly don't have leaders. Granny Weatherwax was the most highly-regarded of the leaders they didn't have."

- Terry Pratchett, Wyrd Sisters.

Re: No CEO: A Swedish company where nobody is in charge

#27

Post by ptaipale »

wu-ikkyu wrote: post #12
ptaipale wrote: post #10

I wonder what happens when the first trouble comes with an accusation of harassment, discrimination or some such thing. How will you defend the company, who will speak for it, and who takes the personal hit that eventually comes?

>How will you defend the company, who will speak for it The communications department, perhaps. >who takes the personal hit that eventually comes? The person responsible, as it should be.

That's a little bit too easy answer. Who is the person responsible? If we have a company without a chain of command, will the board them have a meeting and nominate a fall guy?

Everything doesn't always work out with perfect harmony.

Re: No CEO: A Swedish company where nobody is in charge

#28

Post by cookiecaper »

neolefty wrote: post #21
gaius wrote: post #4

Someone is always in charge. They've just decided not to write down the org chart on paper, is all.

They've written it down -- it's the board for big things and "shared among other employees" for others. It actually sounds pretty practical to me. As people become more responsible and self-regulating, there's less need for a single person to be in charge in a hierarchical sense. > The staff decided that many of the chief executive's responsibilities overlapped with those of the board, while other roles could be shar…

Doesn't happen. People naturally seek out authorities and instinctively elevate and listen to them. Even if no one bears the formal title, there will be a few people who end up directing the group.

Far from eliminating political barriers, "unstructured" groups make them supreme. Without granting explicit designations for authorities, the only thing holding the group together is popularity. This means the best propagandists and most personally charming leaders (read: best flatterers; the people most willing to tell you whatever you want to hear) will be in control, regardless of their incentives, motives, or true qualifications.

Re: No CEO: A Swedish company where nobody is in charge

#29

Post by amirmc »

RubenSandwich wrote: post #22
whack wrote: post #19

It's worth keeping in mind that this is a company of 40 people. Half the size of most primitive hunter-gatherer tribes which had no formal organization whatsoever. At sizes that small, everyone knows each other, everyone knows what everyone else is doing, and people can make decisions through consensus after a round of informal discussions. The problems only start once the "tribe" grows beyond 150. That's when the nu…

Agreed. I've noticed that organizations that often times claim to be 'leaderless', just have other implicit ways of exerting power and influence. Truly leaderless is difficult, and requires humility from all it's members.

This seems like an opportune moment to remind people about the Tyranny of Structurelessness article. If you haven't come across it before, it's definitely worth a read.

http://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm

Re: No CEO: A Swedish company where nobody is in charge

#30

Post by xutopia »

whack wrote: post #19

It's worth keeping in mind that this is a company of 40 people. Half the size of most primitive hunter-gatherer tribes which had no formal organization whatsoever. At sizes that small, everyone knows each other, everyone knows what everyone else is doing, and people can make decisions through consensus after a round of informal discussions. The problems only start once the "tribe" grows beyond 150. That's when the nu…

Maybe that's the natural size for a company and growing beyond that is simply an aberration!
Post reply on HN