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

101–110 of 113 posts

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

#101

Post by sethrin »

dpc59 wrote: post #83
anigbrowl wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep. It only works as long as everyone knows each other. I've been arguing this point for years with my anarchist friends (both left and right varieties), who seem unwilling to grapple with basic concepts like scale and externalities. I don't think straight hierarchies are the only possible organizational structure but it does seem like more people want to be told what to do than to think for themselves. .

My experience working with anarchist friends is that something as simple as leadership creates a certain hierarchy. Obviously if there's nothing formal everyone is pretty cool, but in the organisation of a society and a longer time frame I can see how it can lead to our historical material conditions.

Voluntary association could produce hierarchies, and it's interesting to think about what sort of societies would result. But classically government is defined as a monopoly on violence, and that formulation essentially rules out the possibility of non-coercive government, at least so long as men are capable of violence.

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

#102

Post by gozur88 »

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #95
anigbrowl wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep. It only works as long as everyone knows each other. I've been arguing this point for years with my anarchist friends (both left and right varieties), who seem unwilling to grapple with basic concepts like scale and externalities. I don't think straight hierarchies are the only possible organizational structure but it does seem like more people want to be told what to do than to think for themselves. .

> but it does seem like more people want to be told what to do than to think for themselves I just want to have some clarity around what my role is and where my responsibilities begin and end. Necessarily sometimes I'm required to reach beyond my regular duties. In that context, then, being told what to do vs thinking for myself is a false dichotomy. The two are a nested-hierarchy, whereby I think for myself within t…

>I just want to have some clarity around what my role is and where my responsibilities begin and end.

This. There are two basic ways of looking at things when the organization is fluid. One, "everything is my job", which is a recipe for burnout. Or two, "I decide the boundaries of my job." That doesn't work very well either, because some people will draw the boundaries so small they never have to do anything, and others will draw them so large they don't do anything well.

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

#104

Post by Glench »

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…

> The problems only start once the "tribe" grows beyond 150. That's when the number of people involved is too great for the human brain to process the entire social network. Hence why formal organisations and hierarchy are now needed.

That's an interesting claim! Can we find any places where it doesn't hold up? Yep! In fact, there's a great book called Reinventing Organizations[1] where the author studied successful workplaces that have >100 people each. It's still a research project how to make these organizations work well, but the author and the community around that book are trying to gather working techniques because the benefits can be phenomenal (and that's empirical!)

[1] http://www.reinventingorganizations.com/

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

#105

Post by Existenceblinks »

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…

People tend to build a small business and aren't interested in growing number but profit.

Basecamp has been about 17 years standing, and currently has just 51 people[0]. Everyone seems happy.

I am an export in economy but most of problems companies born to solve doesn't require big size corps. At least in my country, SMEs are driving the GDP.

[0] https://m.signalvnoise.com/why-we-choose-profit-e511efc4dcb9...

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

#106

Post by mos_basik »

nickpsecurity wrote: post #42
jasode wrote: post #37

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 o…

"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 prof…

>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.

I'm fairly sure this is also how strippers often work. Pay the house a fee for the night somewhere in the $50-$200 range, and then hopefully make it back in tips and private dances before the end of the evening.

In all three cases - strippers, hairdressers, consultants - this results in a clear and unambiguous motivation to do a good job and provide value to your customers or you lose your shirt.

In a manner of speaking.

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

#107

Post by nickpsecurity »

walshemj wrote: post #55
nickpsecurity wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 prof…

But hairdressers are an outlier and have hideous medieval working conditions

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

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

#108

Post by walshemj »

adzicg wrote: post #70
walshemj wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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.

most small companies don't have that luxury or the reserves to do that.

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

#109

Post by watwut »

anigbrowl wrote: post #77
RubenSandwich wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yep. It only works as long as everyone knows each other. I've been arguing this point for years with my anarchist friends (both left and right varieties), who seem unwilling to grapple with basic concepts like scale and externalities. I don't think straight hierarchies are the only possible organizational structure but it does seem like more people want to be told what to do than to think for themselves. .

I prefer hierarchy, because good boss is able to give me autonomy and responsibility without me having to constantly fight for it.

Leaderless means being bullied by the most controlling team member unless I constantly defend turf and permanently play politics.

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

#110

Post by walshemj »

cmdrfred wrote: post #64
walshemj wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But hairdressers are an outlier and have hideous medieval working conditions

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.

two of those are highly paid and none of them pay the employer to work
Post reply on HN