Whether it's a hostile board takeover, or a bad hire in a CxO position (or even any regular employee with influence), those risks exist everywhere.
Actually, I think a co-op is better protected.
A co-op should have founding principles, and acting against them should raise red flags.
For distributing profits, etc, again, standard legal docs. Here in Quebec, there are orgs who can help with that (reseau.coop).
The biggest challenge is growing: I'm in a 5 person co-op. In a previous life, I was in a 25-person collective which became hell to manage, as everyone wanted to be heard, but few wanted the responsibilities.
So in our current co-op, two of us tend to enforce the bottom line, in our respective areas. I mean, legal structure and org structure, while there may be influenced, can be pretty orthogonal.
>So in our current co-op, two of us tend to enforce the bottom line, in our respective areas. I mean, legal structure and org structure, while there may be influenced, can be pretty orthogonal.
In some sense, then the two of you may extraordinary - a combination of ethics, IQ and integrity. Your biggest challenge will be handing over the reigns when you are ready to leave (usually only due to bad health or age, it's life long thing). More specifically the task has to begin decades before you leave. If it's not done (often the case) the enterprise's morals rot, even if it continues to be financially successful.
Yep, I see this in small shops of older friends. Some just close shop, or sell their business for almost nothing. Although there are ways to exit profitability from a co-op, I don't expect much. If it survives, I'll be happy.
We're not a big SaaS with exponential growth. We're based on Free Software and I often help competing shops because it helps an otherwise dying ecosystem.
I make most of my money off consulting and my co-op pays me well, and I'm generally really happy with work. Good enough for me.
> The biggest challenge is growing: I'm in a 5 person co-op. In a previous life, I was in a 25-person collective which became hell to manage, as everyone wanted to be heard, but few wanted the responsibilities.
yeah but you see the problem here? without a central leadership, everybody will have equity and you can't really steer the ship anymore.
I don't know too much about reseau or how it functions but i have a lot of difficulty with say a SaaS being run like a coop. 25 developers divide equally the loot? But there will be disagreements and disproportionate equity right off the bat. How do you remove somebody who plays politics and is able to win consensus but you know its going to impact your business? How do you arbitrate disagreements over distribution or spending of resources or the manner in which they conduct operation?
> How do you remove somebody who plays politics and is able to win consensus but you know its going to impact your business? How do you arbitrate disagreements over distribution or spending of resources or the manner in which they conduct operation?
Who is this "you" in "your business"? The business is as much "theirs" as it is "yours". If they can convince enough people of a course of action, even if somr are not convinced, why do you assume that the course of action will be bad?
The biggest weakness of traditional companies is exactly that a sibgle hair-brained boss can wreak havoc on the whole organization below them. Democracy solves this problem, it is much more resistant to a bad actor than autocracy is.
I think top-down and bottom-up organizing styles create essentially two different, but similar, versions of this particular failure mode.
In top-down there's always the risk of someone coming in and making a long string of bad decisions and essentially wrecking everything by leading everyone on a wild goose chase, while in bottom up the risk is someone obstructing good things happening by either being a drag or exercising whatever veto or FUD power they have (whether designed or organic) to prevent action. This looks less dramatic as it's happening but stagnation is just as powerful a force as havoc in the long run.
There's a really tricky balance to strike somewhere in there.
I like the concept of shepherding, not leading. Being on the sidelines, encouraging people to take the lead, but bring them back on track when necessary.
Actually, I think a co-op is better protected.
A co-op should have founding principles, and acting against them should raise red flags.
For distributing profits, etc, again, standard legal docs. Here in Quebec, there are orgs who can help with that (reseau.coop).
The biggest challenge is growing: I'm in a 5 person co-op. In a previous life, I was in a 25-person collective which became hell to manage, as everyone wanted to be heard, but few wanted the responsibilities.
So in our current co-op, two of us tend to enforce the bottom line, in our respective areas. I mean, legal structure and org structure, while there may be influenced, can be pretty orthogonal.