Great strategy. I worked at Morning Star packing company back in 2000 and I was blown away on how efficient and team engaged this company was. Changed my life.
I do not care for the no-manager route, I have worked there and know it has flaws, They could use a couple hard asses with firing capability to police the seasonal drivers and keep them doing their pre-trip inspections properly. But I will say the people at morning star are about the most friendly I have ever worked with, even during a stressful harvest season. The office personnel, Dispatchers, Managers (even though they are not called managers, they are people of higher rank and in charge of things, shot callers), just about every actual employee are super nice and helpful, I am amazed how many of them are able to always be able to greet you with a smile when you seen them totally swamped 12hrs a day 7 days a week. The Truck attendants, Mechanics etc, you tell them you have a problem or want something fixed on a truck, they do not give any attitude or try to get out of anything, they just jump on it and help you out. Shout out to Connie at the Los Banos location, Super nice, always smiling no matter how hectic it gets.
Very good overview. True. Some of the mexicans need to go get fired. Some of the drivers carry a billy club if any of those dirt bags steal their loads or cause trouble. Every year I have trouble with one of those hot head Mexicans.
Absolutely right, schutzenegl1. The truth is, no matter what we say or think, the ONLY reason people come to work is to benefit themselves. The moment "coming to work" ceases to be beneficial, is the moment they quit. Acknowledging that the "organization" is only a human technology designed to enable individuals to have a better life is key to building superior enterprise.
The fact that is almost worker ownership of the means of production is glorious. People think socialism is a scary word because of propaganda, without realising socialism is only worker ownership, nothing more. RISE UP COMRADES.
It's not ironic at all. A business in a capitalistic, market oriented society is primarily motivated by getting the job done as effectively and efficiently as possible. If that means employee self-management than that's what happens. Libertarians have no problem with self-management and may even encourage it's practice, what we have a problem with is state mandated self-management or really any controls over the business process that don't violate an individuals enumerated rights.
I find it most interesting that this is a "Libertarian" video, extolling the benefits of the free market in ideas to build whatever kind of company you want, and yet this is EXACTLY the kind of "Socialist" "workers run the factory" thing that I keep being told is impossible so long as there is private property and profits. What's funny is that the "Socialists" get all offended when I tell them, "if you system is so much better, than just do it. Now I have a video to point them to.
Apparently, this form of self-management is working well at Morning Star, although I do agree with others that it would have been good to have seen how decisions are made without hierarchical management. That's probably a one hour documentary and not a five minute RUclips video.
"Management is essential." Spoken like a true manager! In the corporate world, I've often felt that the business was succeeding DESPITE management, rather than because of it. Outsourcing to China because it's a US management fad, a high tech product with 2% of the cost being labor, then having to build a new plant just like the mothballed old US plant, American engineers living in China, the ruthless time-to-market slipping by months, quality issues, and Chinese knockoffs six months later.
More information about the managerial processes of the company would be good. Even if there is not a hierarchical management structure management decisions still need to be made.
It's really no different than how we did it at Dillons/Kroger, but they may give more autonomy. In this case, departments can move resources via their dollar value from one department to another. For example, say I work in the Deli and I need some chickens for roasting. I order them from the meat department which comes out of my department budget. What we sell is our revenue (despite being tallied together as the store's). So, if I buy too many chickens for roasting it's on me, not the store.
This is about a different way of managing the company, not anything about workers owning the company. There also is nothing surprising about Reason championing groups of individuals coming together to own/run businesses. Any publicly-traded company is owned by a collective, a collective of stock holders. Also - socialism is not ownership by the worker, socialism is ownership by the State. Glad Reason made something that got you thinking! :)
I've thought a lot about that, RelaxedAnarchist, and I think the answer, to some large degree, has something to do with trying to convince the princes to lay down their crowns. When you have unilateral control, and everyone in the enterprise is your "subject", it's hard to build up the courage required to give those subjects true freedom.
They did kinda go over that if the company employee needs something they go buy it. I could imagine that if there is excessive use and abuse the other employees will most likely realize it and probably reprimand the employee. After all large sums of money missing will show up one way or another. Infact the people who normally steal from their companies hate their company and usually the bureaucratic nightmare that they have.
I believe that what makes their management process so successful is in the one sentence one of the men said in the video " When you hire the right people..."
No managers. This flies in the face of all of my personal work experience so far. At every company I've been at, most workers are not self-managing. They know how to do their jobs well enough, but they have little drive or capacity for personal directive. If there's a time limit on a task, more often than not, a worker will get it done then fool around for the remaining time before asking what to do next instead of finding something else productive to do. Management is essential.
It looks like there are a lot of interest in the details behind the brief overview presented in this video. If you would like to know more about Self-Management, please check out the videos on our channel, which address some of the questions below (with more on the way): Who "fires" people?: CLOU Colleagues and Gaining Agreement Who decides salaries?: Compensation Who makes budget decisions?: Budget Authority
I'd say that GOOD managers make workers productive by telling them what to do, and GREAT managers create an environment where workers want to excel, enjoy their work, and want the company to excel. I'd say that good managers are rare and great managers are very rare. I do agree that at most companies, workers and managers have different goals and there is often strife. I'd also say that people working for a paycheck are generally less happy than those paid to do what they enjoy doing.
I said that it was ironic because the idea of worker's having control over their work environment and business practices is one that has it's origins in socialism, and capitalism is an economic system that is based on private ownership of the means of production and the production of goods or services for profit. The video seems to suggest that running the company is a collective effort that everyone has an interest in.
We have quite a few more than 50 employees--but I completely understand the skepticism. Many people have a hard time imagining things that they've never seen before; no issue with that. I will say, though, that the principles we've tried to build the organization on are the same principles of free society that we've seen work in very large societies, so I think it can work where all 7 billion humans are involved.
People complain about worker's rights, yet assume laws and regulations will suffice. When in fact, Morning Star's model is probably the most efficient. Not really sure what there is not to understand here..
If you have been a member of this company for a while, you will have seen it slowly get corrupted. It's very sad. I hoped of all places it would not happen here. Like any relationship, it takes work to stay committed. MS has lost it's way. Sad.
People who work and earn their pay. They aren't trying to "get over" on the company by finding ways to work less. Positive treatment returns positive results.
Far too many companies say they cannot pay fair wage to labor, but then they have this high price dead layer of management, so get rid of the deadbeat mangers workers can supervise themselves, and the company can pay fair wages in today's so called highly competitive market.
How involved is hiring? How is work assigned? How do workers advance? I basically work in this kind of environment now, but I still have superiors (thankfully) I can run to if something goes wrong or if I need help.
Didn't you watch? The management isn't collective, it is flexible individual management with specific departmental goals in mind. This is the opposite of collective or centralized management.
Where does it say that the workers in this video own the means of production? Morning Star is just an example of a democratically managed organization existing within a market system, no problem at all in that. Socialization of the company's property would destroy their profitability.
it's quite simple. Resources are pooled. Everyone's pay check is determined by how much they need to live and grow and by how much the company needs to live and grow. The company's money is in a big pool and any of the employees can just dip in to take what they need to live and what they need to make the company grow. Seems crazy but it's really that simple.
While Chris J. Rufer is the guy that started the company it's unclear as to if he can be called the owner. When I looked at this company's website I notice that the few times it refers to him as a fellow colleague rather than any kind of boss, then again that may just be how he prefers to think of himself. So whether it's a worker co-op this guy started or he's just choosing to run it this way I can't be sure of until or unless I can find out more about it.
Why does a co-op imply anything other than private ownership? If stocks are privately owned, or a business is divided amongst partners is privately owned, or a business that issues stock options is privately owned, how is a business with an alternative management style NOT privately owned? How is that "collectivized" when different departments are given the means to choose their own best path to success within a certain budget?
Here's the difference between this model, and say a union. These people have a vested interest in maintaining market share and efficiency as it's directly tied to compensation. It's a very healthy system and you end up with everyone taking on the role of a small business owner.
On another note: You're right--this is a key feature that Coase referred to in his definition of the firm, but using it as a timeless definition for the firm might not be entirely accurate. Historically, people coming together and taking orders/minimizing transaction costs associated w/price systems/trade brought some measure of perceived efficiency. But I think technology makes an internal pricing system far more realistic--in fact, real. So maybe "firm" needs a new definition?
You're right that a market approach wouldn't care how a business is run, I just found it curious that a group championing private ownership is praising an experiment with collectivization.
There is a MAJOR difference... each preson is working for his OWN good, and while that benefits the collective it is a secondary effect... each person is working for his own highest indiviual capacity for his own fulfillment, and not for the love of the collective...
Although historically the Soviet Union used union control, Marx had wrote a large amount about how it's the workers who must control the means of production, and a large amount of Marxist after him agreed, we had Rosa Luxemburg in Germany who although sided with Lenin a lot argued greatly in favourite of what we call "Left Communist" rather than the centre Communism Lenin used. Trotsky I believe also was in favour of worker self-management.
My personal experience with Libertarians and Socialists is that both groups have more in common than either of them care to admit, and that many of their conflicts seem to be a conflict of terms rather than actual ideals.
I wasn't talking about Libertarianism per se, rather I just found it odd that a pro-capitalist group like 'Reason' would give positive coverage to a company experimenting with a socialist idea. However you make an interesting point and I'm glad you did. This video (watch?v=EOl43BA0mR8) advocates some of the same things that seems to be going on in the video but perhaps with slightly different language or primary intent.
good video... now i would love to hear some sentences about the risks running this company, the wages for the employees, about the ownership of this company and how the profit is divided. Or is Selfmanagement the next way to reduce overhead cost?
Okay... So let's say that a company is based on 100 shares. A share is something that You purchase as ownership of a company. Ownership is a fundamental, natural right. Then profits are divided among the shareholders, in this case the 100 shares. Any questions?
and what you fail to see is that is EXACTLY what is happening ... each person owns their time, labor, and knowlegde and that is the capital they are trading for the wages they are paid.
I worked in safeway, and I hope service industry can do the same as this kind management. This is probably a solusion for both Uion and Company. However, what does shareholder do in morning star? Will someone accidently demand more authority?
How is the means of production owned by the user? The end-user is whoever is consuming the salsa, ketchup and spaghetti sauce. The workers might have a profit sharing program, but so what? Lots of for-profit companies do; they are called bonuses, stock options, incentives to exceed quotas and so on. The planning isn't centralized, the management is minimal, the ownership is private, it is a for-profit enterprise, it competes in an open market...there isn't a socialist thing about it.
Not quite correct, Cognitivelmbias. From the article: "Paul Green, Jr. estimates that as many as 50% of seasoned hires leave within 2 years because they have a hard time adapting to a system where they can't play god." In context, I was referring to the fact that people who come in from very senior positions often struggle to fit in within Morning Star; that statistic doesn't hold true for the enterprise as a whole.
No managers. And yet, observe the results. Your final premise, "Management is essential", is proven false by this company's very existence and properity.
Ya they didn't say that though, they were just referencing the management, Collective ownership of the actual company would explain their interest in making efficiencies as they would receive rewards through increased profits and reduced overhead etc etc. But they didn't mention any of that, I'm too lazy to spend too much time looking any farther into the company to determine how ownership is set up.
Okay, where I work, I do things against the "corporate bosses'" wishes when I see things need to change. But when they start to make more money from the changes and I ask for a raise or compensation, they refuse, so I stop doing the extra and revenue declines. I want to know, in this tomato company, do those people who risk their money to better things get compensation for their innovation or does it get spread to the collective?
If employees were born into firms and never made a conscious decision to work there, you might have a point. I don’t think that's the case, but I see from the article that your father also works for MorningStar, so maybe there's some sort of inter-generational serfdom taking place there. It’s fine if people want to work in this system, but the market will select against it if it can’t beat normal management systems in ROI in a broad range of circumstances (and it wouldn’t if Coase is correct).
how does the company prevent cliques ... in-groups and favoritism ... I understand the ebb and flow of the informality but I also understand us/them mentalities that can become problematic in groups ...
Some Libertarians MIGHT think hierarchy, micromanagement, or capitalists, are always going to produce a more effective organization, but that is not a prerequisite belief in order to self identify as an Libertarian. Those that do believe this, still don't support those things just for the sake of supporting them.
What a great video! I purchase and consume many of Morning Star's products, and had no idea of their business structure. I had even wondered about them, based on the products they produce. Did you see the American flag at 4:46? 13 stars, not 50. Hmmmm.... :-)
I suppose you may have a point there. A lot of the people I associate with seem to think one equals the other so I guess it's easy for me to make the same fallacy if I'm not careful.
I don't understand how this point is an argument in favor of Self-Management. If anything, it's an argument in favor of the idea that technology might one day render firms of all kinds obsolete, regardless of which management systems they use. Care to clarify?
That's probably completely true. But there are a lot of jobs no one enjoys doing, and those jobs are generally done by people working for a paycheck. I'm inclined to say it's actually most people who don't like their jobs, but at a minimum it's a large minority. And people who don't like their jobs but work to live need management.
Being collectively owned by the workers vs. being privately owned by all the workers seems to be more of a conflict of terms more than anything else as regardless of which term you used you'd be effectively talking about the same thing right?
Doesn't every employee have a vested interest in the success or failure of the company with which they're employed, whether they realize it or act upon it ot not?
Socialism is an economic system characterized by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy, and a political philosophy advocating such a system. "Social ownership" may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownership, state ownership, or citizen ownership of equity. It's a mistake to assume socialism automatically means state ownership.
the problem is that most statists believe that duty should take the place of pride in your work, and ability... that self-esteem should replace self-respect... that people will work to the fullest of ability, without reward, and will gladly se themselves wsacrificed to the lowest, least, and laziest.
The HBR article on this says that upwards of 50% of new hires at Morning Star leave within two years. It's clearly not so good as this video makes it sound.
Socialism is most certainly ownership by the State. It's just that many people are confusing syndicalism, especially anarchic syndicalism, with socialism.
It sounds great to have no managers or supervisors but there are downsides to it as well, Such as the fact that when no one is in charge, no one takes charge. There may be unsafe practices going on and no one says or does anything because it is no ones job to do so. Sure they say you are supposed to speak up, but in reality, it does not happen, people just want to do their job and not get mixed up in other peoples businesses at the workplace, they feel they are not a manager, not paid as a manager so why make a big deal about something and just add more work for yourself. Sometimes you need that one supervisor or manager that takes charge and keeps people in line, makes people afraid of doing things wrong or unsafe because they know someone is there to call them on it, when you are all equals, no one holds anyone else accountable and everyone knows it so they feel more free to do things unsafe without any worry about getting in trouble for it.
Fair enough, but I didn't say anything about free market economics. Capitalism= an economic system that is based on private ownership of the means of production and the production of goods or services for profit. free market= a market where the value (price) of a good or service is determined by supply and demand.
The equivalent of firing someone in a society is simply not giving that person money. When a company fires a worker it simply ceases to give that worker money. The same goes for a society. If I don't think you contribute anything of value to me, I probably won't give you any money.
if the video description isn't doing it for you, then check this out: tinyurl,com/c2bdnv7 (replace comma). note: redirects to company site, but should still satisfy your curiosities. but i get your point, nonetheless.
Great strategy. I worked at Morning Star packing company back in 2000 and I was blown away on how efficient and team engaged this company was. Changed my life.
The company has been corrupted. It's a shame. Surveillance is the name of the game.
I do not care for the no-manager route, I have worked there and know it has flaws, They could use a couple hard asses with firing capability to police the seasonal drivers and keep them doing their pre-trip inspections properly. But I will say the people at morning star are about the most friendly I have ever worked with, even during a stressful harvest season. The office personnel, Dispatchers, Managers (even though they are not called managers, they are people of higher rank and in charge of things, shot callers), just about every actual employee are super nice and helpful, I am amazed how many of them are able to always be able to greet you with a smile when you seen them totally swamped 12hrs a day 7 days a week. The Truck attendants, Mechanics etc, you tell them you have a problem or want something fixed on a truck, they do not give any attitude or try to get out of anything, they just jump on it and help you out. Shout out to Connie at the Los Banos location, Super nice, always smiling no matter how hectic it gets.
Very good overview. True. Some of the mexicans need to go get fired.
Some of the drivers carry a billy club if any of those dirt bags steal their loads or cause trouble.
Every year I have trouble with one of those hot head Mexicans.
They have figured out a way to avoid paying anyone a manager's salary. Genius.
😂and make them more money
Because people are afraid to try new things. they always want to follow tradition. I love working for morningstar is by far the best job i ever had
Hi I work for Foster Farms was wondering do they start you off over minnum wage good benefits?
@@Pmo209 all new drivers complain about the low pay. Less than minimum wage per hour when calculated.
Absolutely right, schutzenegl1. The truth is, no matter what we say or think, the ONLY reason people come to work is to benefit themselves. The moment "coming to work" ceases to be beneficial, is the moment they quit. Acknowledging that the "organization" is only a human technology designed to enable individuals to have a better life is key to building superior enterprise.
This is spontaneous order, this is the perfect example of how people will take on responsibility in a society free of the initiation of force.
Nice approach especially the sentence about the people who work on the floor and know what needs to be done. This really is the key.
The fact that is almost worker ownership of the means of production is glorious. People think socialism is a scary word because of propaganda, without realising socialism is only worker ownership, nothing more. RISE UP COMRADES.
It's not ironic at all. A business in a capitalistic, market oriented society is primarily motivated by getting the job done as effectively and efficiently as possible. If that means employee self-management than that's what happens. Libertarians have no problem with self-management and may even encourage it's practice, what we have a problem with is state mandated self-management or really any controls over the business process that don't violate an individuals enumerated rights.
I find it most interesting that this is a "Libertarian" video, extolling the benefits of the free market in ideas to build whatever kind of company you want, and yet this is EXACTLY the kind of "Socialist" "workers run the factory" thing that I keep being told is impossible so long as there is private property and profits.
What's funny is that the "Socialists" get all offended when I tell them, "if you system is so much better, than just do it.
Now I have a video to point them to.
Apparently, this form of self-management is working well at Morning Star, although I do agree with others that it would have been good to have seen how decisions are made without hierarchical management. That's probably a one hour documentary and not a five minute RUclips video.
"Management is essential." Spoken like a true manager!
In the corporate world, I've often felt that the business was succeeding DESPITE management, rather than because of it. Outsourcing to China because it's a US management fad, a high tech product with 2% of the cost being labor, then having to build a new plant just like the mothballed old US plant, American engineers living in China, the ruthless time-to-market slipping by months, quality issues, and Chinese knockoffs six months later.
Really these 3 rd world Mexicans have self management ? Joke.
More information about the managerial processes of the company would be good. Even if there is not a hierarchical management structure management decisions still need to be made.
It's really no different than how we did it at Dillons/Kroger, but they may give more autonomy. In this case, departments can move resources via their dollar value from one department to another. For example, say I work in the Deli and I need some chickens for roasting. I order them from the meat department which comes out of my department budget. What we sell is our revenue (despite being tallied together as the store's). So, if I buy too many chickens for roasting it's on me, not the store.
This is about a different way of managing the company, not anything about workers owning the company. There also is nothing surprising about Reason championing groups of individuals coming together to own/run businesses. Any publicly-traded company is owned by a collective, a collective of stock holders.
Also - socialism is not ownership by the worker, socialism is ownership by the State.
Glad Reason made something that got you thinking! :)
I've thought a lot about that, RelaxedAnarchist, and I think the answer, to some large degree, has something to do with trying to convince the princes to lay down their crowns. When you have unilateral control, and everyone in the enterprise is your "subject", it's hard to build up the courage required to give those subjects true freedom.
You're welcome! Morning Star is a fascinating, and the tomatoes are absolutely mesmerizing.
They did kinda go over that if the company employee needs something they go buy it. I could imagine that if there is excessive use and abuse the other employees will most likely realize it and probably reprimand the employee. After all large sums of money missing will show up one way or another. Infact the people who normally steal from their companies hate their company and usually the bureaucratic nightmare that they have.
I believe that what makes their management process so successful is in the one sentence one of the men said in the video " When you hire the right people..."
No managers. This flies in the face of all of my personal work experience so far. At every company I've been at, most workers are not self-managing. They know how to do their jobs well enough, but they have little drive or capacity for personal directive. If there's a time limit on a task, more often than not, a worker will get it done then fool around for the remaining time before asking what to do next instead of finding something else productive to do. Management is essential.
It looks like there are a lot of interest in the details behind the brief overview presented in this video. If you would like to know more about Self-Management, please check out the videos on our channel, which address some of the questions below (with more on the way):
Who "fires" people?: CLOU Colleagues and Gaining Agreement
Who decides salaries?: Compensation
Who makes budget decisions?: Budget Authority
More exploration into how this company actually works would be very much appreciated.
I'd say that GOOD managers make workers productive by telling them what to do, and GREAT managers create an environment where workers want to excel, enjoy their work, and want the company to excel. I'd say that good managers are rare and great managers are very rare.
I do agree that at most companies, workers and managers have different goals and there is often strife.
I'd also say that people working for a paycheck are generally less happy than those paid to do what they enjoy doing.
I said that it was ironic because the idea of worker's having control over their work environment and business practices is one that has it's origins in socialism, and capitalism is an economic system that is based on private ownership of the means of production and the production of goods or services for profit. The video seems to suggest that running the company is a collective effort that everyone has an interest in.
We have quite a few more than 50 employees--but I completely understand the skepticism. Many people have a hard time imagining things that they've never seen before; no issue with that.
I will say, though, that the principles we've tried to build the organization on are the same principles of free society that we've seen work in very large societies, so I think it can work where all 7 billion humans are involved.
People complain about worker's rights, yet assume laws and regulations will suffice. When in fact, Morning Star's model is probably the most efficient. Not really sure what there is not to understand here..
If you have been a member of this company for a while, you will have seen it slowly get corrupted.
It's very sad. I hoped of all places it would not happen here.
Like any relationship, it takes work to stay committed.
MS has lost it's way. Sad.
People who work and earn their pay. They aren't trying to "get over" on the company by finding ways to work less. Positive treatment returns positive results.
Far too many companies say they cannot pay fair wage to labor, but then they have this high price dead layer of management, so get rid of the deadbeat mangers workers can supervise themselves, and the company can pay fair wages in today's so called highly competitive market.
How involved is hiring? How is work assigned? How do workers advance? I basically work in this kind of environment now, but I still have superiors (thankfully) I can run to if something goes wrong or if I need help.
Didn't you watch? The management isn't collective, it is flexible individual management with specific departmental goals in mind. This is the opposite of collective or centralized management.
Where does it say that the workers in this video own the means of production? Morning Star is just an example of a democratically managed organization existing within a market system, no problem at all in that. Socialization of the company's property would destroy their profitability.
it's quite simple. Resources are pooled. Everyone's pay check is determined by how much they need to live and grow and by how much the company needs to live and grow. The company's money is in a big pool and any of the employees can just dip in to take what they need to live and what they need to make the company grow. Seems crazy but it's really that simple.
While Chris J. Rufer is the guy that started the company it's unclear as to if he can be called the owner. When I looked at this company's website I notice that the few times it refers to him as a fellow colleague rather than any kind of boss, then again that may just be how he prefers to think of himself. So whether it's a worker co-op this guy started or he's just choosing to run it this way I can't be sure of until or unless I can find out more about it.
Which means, you economize as reasonably as possible, and it can change in terms of conditions (seasonal sales, holidays, etc).
Why does a co-op imply anything other than private ownership? If stocks are privately owned, or a business is divided amongst partners is privately owned, or a business that issues stock options is privately owned, how is a business with an alternative management style NOT privately owned? How is that "collectivized" when different departments are given the means to choose their own best path to success within a certain budget?
Here's the difference between this model, and say a union. These people have a vested interest in maintaining market share and efficiency as it's directly tied to compensation. It's a very healthy system and you end up with everyone taking on the role of a small business owner.
On another note: You're right--this is a key feature that Coase referred to in his definition of the firm, but using it as a timeless definition for the firm might not be entirely accurate. Historically, people coming together and taking orders/minimizing transaction costs associated w/price systems/trade brought some measure of perceived efficiency. But I think technology makes an internal pricing system far more realistic--in fact, real. So maybe "firm" needs a new definition?
You're right that a market approach wouldn't care how a business is run, I just found it curious that a group championing private ownership is praising an experiment with collectivization.
Employee owned means it's privately owned. There are quite a few large employee owned corporations in the US.
There is a MAJOR difference... each preson is working for his OWN good, and while that benefits the collective it is a secondary effect... each person is working for his own highest indiviual capacity for his own fulfillment, and not for the love of the collective...
Although historically the Soviet Union used union control, Marx had wrote a large amount about how it's the workers who must control the means of production, and a large amount of Marxist after him agreed, we had Rosa Luxemburg in Germany who although sided with Lenin a lot argued greatly in favourite of what we call "Left Communist" rather than the centre Communism Lenin used. Trotsky I believe also was in favour of worker self-management.
My personal experience with Libertarians and Socialists is that both groups have more in common than either of them care to admit, and that many of their conflicts seem to be a conflict of terms rather than actual ideals.
I wasn't talking about Libertarianism per se, rather I just found it odd that a pro-capitalist group like 'Reason' would give positive coverage to a company experimenting with a socialist idea. However you make an interesting point and I'm glad you did. This video (watch?v=EOl43BA0mR8) advocates some of the same things that seems to be going on in the video but perhaps with slightly different language or primary intent.
Thanks for the link, but looks like their website is currently down.I'll check back on it later.
That is, I agree that if Self Management can't beat traditional management the market will select against it.
Yes, it's coming up now. Thanks!
Edward Deming would approve of this company.
Looks like a great company to work for, I always see them hauling tomatoes up and down the interstate
good video...
now i would love to hear some sentences about the risks running this company, the wages for the employees, about the ownership of this company and how the profit is divided. Or is Selfmanagement the next way to reduce overhead cost?
Okay... So let's say that a company is based on 100 shares. A share is something that You purchase as ownership of a company. Ownership is a fundamental, natural right. Then profits are divided among the shareholders, in this case the 100 shares.
Any questions?
What about the video description ? Have you read it ?
and what you fail to see is that is EXACTLY what is happening ... each person owns their time, labor, and knowlegde and that is the capital they are trading for the wages they are paid.
I worked in safeway, and I hope service industry can do the same as this kind management. This is probably a solusion for both Uion and Company. However, what does shareholder do in morning star? Will someone accidently demand more authority?
How is the means of production owned by the user? The end-user is whoever is consuming the salsa, ketchup and spaghetti sauce. The workers might have a profit sharing program, but so what? Lots of for-profit companies do; they are called bonuses, stock options, incentives to exceed quotas and so on. The planning isn't centralized, the management is minimal, the ownership is private, it is a for-profit enterprise, it competes in an open market...there isn't a socialist thing about it.
Not quite correct, Cognitivelmbias. From the article: "Paul Green, Jr. estimates that as many as 50% of seasoned hires leave within 2 years because they have a hard time adapting to a system where they can't play god." In context, I was referring to the fact that people who come in from very senior positions often struggle to fit in within Morning Star; that statistic doesn't hold true for the enterprise as a whole.
Ive work their for 17 yrs..and trust me not everybody is on the same page can be difficult at time
No managers. And yet, observe the results. Your final premise, "Management is essential", is proven false by this company's very existence and properity.
I guess "seasoned" is a bit vague. So what is the real statistic for the whole company?
Ya they didn't say that though, they were just referencing the management, Collective ownership of the actual company would explain their interest in making efficiencies as they would receive rewards through increased profits and reduced overhead etc etc.
But they didn't mention any of that, I'm too lazy to spend too much time looking any farther into the company to determine how ownership is set up.
Impossible, as you say, for transaction costs to decline to zero--but transaction costs aren't zero in a traditional firm, either, are they?
Okay, where I work, I do things against the "corporate bosses'" wishes when I see things need to change. But when they start to make more money from the changes and I ask for a raise or compensation, they refuse, so I stop doing the extra and revenue declines.
I want to know, in this tomato company, do those people who risk their money to better things get compensation for their innovation or does it get spread to the collective?
Man looks like California is a great place to run a company.
Apparently they have more information at the self management institute website.
This is a really interesting story/report.
If employees were born into firms and never made a conscious decision to work there, you might have a point. I don’t think that's the case, but I see from the article that your father also works for MorningStar, so maybe there's some sort of inter-generational serfdom taking place there. It’s fine if people want to work in this system, but the market will select against it if it can’t beat normal management systems in ROI in a broad range of circumstances (and it wouldn’t if Coase is correct).
hey if it works it works, the company is growing so that seems like proof. i just feel like it wasn't explained properly.
Love, love, love it
how does the company prevent cliques ... in-groups and favoritism ... I understand the ebb and flow of the informality but I also understand us/them mentalities that can become problematic in groups ...
Some Libertarians MIGHT think hierarchy, micromanagement, or capitalists, are always going to produce a more effective organization, but that is not a prerequisite belief in order to self identify as an Libertarian. Those that do believe this, still don't support those things just for the sake of supporting them.
What a great video! I purchase and consume many of Morning Star's products, and had no idea of their business structure. I had even wondered about them, based on the products they produce.
Did you see the American flag at 4:46? 13 stars, not 50. Hmmmm.... :-)
absolutely superb!
Scrappmutt2, are you still having problems accessing the site? As far as I can tell, it's running fine...
Thank you, xevnoc!
I agree with that wholeheartedly.
I suppose you may have a point there. A lot of the people I associate with seem to think one equals the other so I guess it's easy for me to make the same fallacy if I'm not careful.
I don't understand how this point is an argument in favor of Self-Management. If anything, it's an argument in favor of the idea that technology might one day render firms of all kinds obsolete, regardless of which management systems they use. Care to clarify?
Morning Star just does tomatoes. Morning Star Farms does all the veggie foods and are owned by Kellogs.
"(Full disclosure: Morning Star founder Chris Rufer is a supporter of Reason Foundation, the nonprofit that publishes Reason TV.)"
That's probably completely true. But there are a lot of jobs no one enjoys doing, and those jobs are generally done by people working for a paycheck. I'm inclined to say it's actually most people who don't like their jobs, but at a minimum it's a large minority. And people who don't like their jobs but work to live need management.
Sounds an interesting idea.
Being collectively owned by the workers vs. being privately owned by all the workers seems to be more of a conflict of terms more than anything else as regardless of which term you used you'd be effectively talking about the same thing right?
Doesn't every employee have a vested interest in the success or failure of the company with which they're employed, whether they realize it or act upon it ot not?
I don't get it either. Who hires people at Morning Star? Dictates wages? Fires people?
Socialism is an economic system characterized by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy, and a political philosophy advocating such a system. "Social ownership" may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownership, state ownership, or citizen ownership of equity. It's a mistake to assume socialism automatically means state ownership.
All in favor of raising wages? AYE!!!
Sounds a lot like Valve Software.
the problem is that most statists believe that duty should take the place of pride in your work, and ability... that self-esteem should replace self-respect... that people will work to the fullest of ability, without reward, and will gladly se themselves wsacrificed to the lowest, least, and laziest.
The HBR article on this says that upwards of 50% of new hires at Morning Star leave within two years. It's clearly not so good as this video makes it sound.
A more in-depth explanation is needed.
Socialism is most certainly ownership by the State. It's just that many people are confusing syndicalism, especially anarchic syndicalism, with socialism.
who organizes it, who pays all these people and who has control over the resources
Great stuff
It sounds great to have no managers or supervisors but there are downsides to it as well, Such as the fact that when no one is in charge, no one takes charge. There may be unsafe practices going on and no one says or does anything because it is no ones job to do so. Sure they say you are supposed to speak up, but in reality, it does not happen, people just want to do their job and not get mixed up in other peoples businesses at the workplace, they feel they are not a manager, not paid as a manager so why make a big deal about something and just add more work for yourself. Sometimes you need that one supervisor or manager that takes charge and keeps people in line, makes people afraid of doing things wrong or unsafe because they know someone is there to call them on it, when you are all equals, no one holds anyone else accountable and everyone knows it so they feel more free to do things unsafe without any worry about getting in trouble for it.
Government regulations are the problem to wages and success. It's a simple solution!
Fair enough, but I didn't say anything about free market economics.
Capitalism= an economic system that is based on private ownership of the means of production and the production of goods or services for profit.
free market= a market where the value (price) of a good or service is determined by supply and demand.
Who is the residual claimant?
The equivalent of firing someone in a society is simply not giving that person money. When a company fires a worker it simply ceases to give that worker money. The same goes for a society. If I don't think you contribute anything of value to me, I probably won't give you any money.
Workers owning the means of (tomato paste) production?...I wonder what this is called...
if the video description isn't doing it for you, then check this out: tinyurl,com/c2bdnv7 (replace comma). note: redirects to company site, but should still satisfy your curiosities.
but i get your point, nonetheless.
That's for them to know and you to find out by applying for a job there.