Montag, 30. September 2013
The Semco Way
Here I found a quite interesting way of organizing a company.
The Semco Way
Basically people work in small groups without titles. They can choose their working hours, working budget and their salary. They only get measured by their colleagues.
I know that this might sound very liberal and can not work with every company , but if a company has skilled and reliable employees it can be very efficient.
http://www.agreatsupervisor.com/articles/lessons.htm
Feel free to share your thoughts!
Do you think it could work?
Abonnieren
Kommentare zum Post (Atom)
Hi Albert,
AntwortenLöschenthis is indeed a very interesting success story and without knowing that Semco really exists and that it is really successful, I guess not many people would believe this story.
However as we see, this is a unique story. I like the idea behind a free minded company, which really values their employees and everybody is equal. However, I do not think that a company model like this is already mature enough to be adpoted to other organisations. Mainly I think it could fail not because of the managers or CEOs, but rather because of the employees. I have the feeling (I can only judge from my personal perspective in Austria) a work place is also seen as a competition place. You want to be better as your colleague, you want to achieve higher returns and get assigned a higher job position. Especially in Austria titles are very important and if you haven't studied and achieved a degree, you are automatically one step behind everyone.
What do you think? Could you imagine a company like this functioning in Austria?
Thanks for the interesting article Albert! I agree with Lisa. I also believe that in Austria where hierachy and titles are very important this concept might not work. On the other hand I can see this concept being used in start ups. People working in a start-up are all focused on one goal which everyone wants to achieve - therefore there is a rather flat hierachy and this company model can definitly work. From my experiences I can also see this model being used in other countries. I spent my PTS in Sweden where the hierarchy is very flat and there are very big differences on how individuals want to be seen (Swedish people tend to like the idea of being all equal). Therefore I can definitly see this model being used in Swedish companies. Lisa Pulsinger, you also spent half a year in Sweden, what do you think about it?
AntwortenLöschenDear Albert,
AntwortenLöschenI found this article very interesting and it actually surprised me, too, that an approach like this can work out so well.
In this context, I would like to bring up a little example of my own working experience. During my PTS I worked for a little company in Brussels, that has also offices in 3 other destinations.
At the time of my internship, there were in total 12 staff members working for the company whilst 6 of them were placed in the office in Brussels where I completed my PTS. Even though, the total company size was in fact very small, each one of those 12 people (even the trainees after a certain period of time) had a certain title and was assigned a field of responsibility. Moreover, 2 out of the 6 people in the office in Brussels were “untouchable top managers” indicating that only a tiny number of “normal staff members” was left there. Sometimes this seemed ridiculous to me – especially due to the fact that we were only 6 people there, anyway – but for the company it was important to have the position of every staff member clearly defined.
In fact, I could imagine a company like this in Austria, though; I think it is highly unlikely. In my opinion, this is due to the fact that Austrians are not (yet) used to working like this and most of them, I imagine, would not choose such a working method as I think we are still a people that prefers having a certain amount of limits, standards and rules giving us a little sense of security. For the other point, I absolutely go along with Lisa and Laura, stating that for us Austrians competition and reputation is an important factor when it comes to our job.
I really enjoyed reading this article as this is a story about something I would have never thought... what makes me a little bit sceptic about this company structure is that there is actually no hierachy given. In big companies where many departments are I could not imagine this sturcture to work out so well but in smaller companies the situation is different.
AntwortenLöschenDuring my PTS I got the chance to spend some days in a creative agency where only six people worked. Because of this small amount of employees the atmosphere is much more relaxed, there does not exist a hierachy, everyone knows about what the others do...
I could imagine the structure Semco uses, in little companies where no real work climate exists but friends that achieve a common goal, like in creative agencies etc..
I also enjoyed reading this article and was quit surprised of this approach. I would expect such a structure in a kind of marketing agency or any other "creative" company, but not in a technical field. But it work out for Semco.
AntwortenLöschenI think in a SME this strategy can work almost everywhere, but, like I am used to, in an oligopoly this wouldn´t be a successful way of doing business. There are so many kinds of different departments with spezialized people in it, which would make it rather hard to follow this approach.
In the contrary, due to my experrience in China, in my opinion this would not work out there because due to their history Chinese people are used to serve and do not want to take too much responsibility. For sure there are a llot of them with enterpreneurial spirit, but they open up their own business and hire people who serve them.
Dear folks,
LöschenThanks to Albert for this nice little article. It is hard to create value after those qualified comments which have been made already:)
Since I also worked in China for almost 6 months for a large multinational, I agree with Markus that this business model would hardly work in some Asian countries, since employees there have different mindsets and expectations about their workplace.
Since we are talking about a pure laissez-faire leadership style and referring to what we heard so far about this leadership style, we already know that this is only applicable in some countries, even in only some industries.
From my perspective it is a nice success story though, and I believe if the objective is to obtain an enterprise with these terms of conditions, it would be possible since human resource could be developed in this specific direction, depending on the size, the industry and - of course - the region.
Enjoy your day!
Hi again,
AntwortenLöschenjudging from your commments I do think we all believe that such a leadership style and business model can function in some cultures whereas in other cultures a company like this would be far away from a success.
As Laura,also I spent my PTS in Sweden and I totally agree with her that a business model like that of Semco could totally function there. Everybody is his or her own boss and the CEO is only consulted on serious company affecting issues. The inter-relationship between departments is functioning quite well and nobody cares about job titles and positions.
Lisa Pulsinger (if it doesn't show my profil name)
No doubt, this is an amazing and also surprising success story! Personally I think that the most important factor here are the people. This model could not work out if it weren't for flexible, innovation-seeking employees, who are willing to try something new. And of course they also need to be realistic about themselves. A handful of employees who set their salary sky-high or never actually show up could ruin the whole company. But obviously the vast majority of Semco's employees is doing a good job at a decent salary. That's why I think that in principle this concept could work out anywhere on the planet, as long as you have the right people. ;)
AntwortenLöschenI agree that it would be hard to implement such an approach in an Austrian company for the already mentioned reasons. I think that what is most important in this concept is mutual trust. If the management does not trust the employees that they can organize their work for themselves and that they work for their own benefits and for the company's benefits this concept will not work. But also the workforce has to be open-minded, responsible and flexible enough to accept the missing structures and the possibility to organize their work on their own.
AntwortenLöschenBut the article also said that it took 20 years and several crises for the company where it is today. So, maybe it is possible in the future that such approaches become wider applied when it is necessary to restructure and adapt to other needs.