Unique business aims to spread solar power (Shocking! Baffling!)

Source: CNN

BOULDER, Colorado (CNN) -- Blake Jones' business plan for his company, Namaste Solar Electric, was so unusual, he confounded a lot of business experts.

Outsiders were baffled by some of these company plans:

• Environmental concerns would be a driving force in every aspect of the company

• Six weeks of paid time off

• A concept called FOH -- frank, open and honest -- to help eliminate gossip and grudges

• Employees, no matter what their job description, have the same pay scale

• One percent of yearly revenues go to solar systems donated to community groups

• All major decisions would be made by consensus of all company employees

Jones had done a serious turnabout in his own career that inspired some of the unusual principles of Namaste. Namaste is a Sanskrit greeting meaning, "to bow to you." The civil engineer spent five years working in the Middle East for Brown and Root, a subsidiary of Halliburton, in the oil and gas industry.





Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/07/17/solar.office/index.html?iref=mpstoryview

Maybe once a year they can hang an effigy of Ayn Rand too.

terra-ist.

It's great! And exactly how I would run a company.

It will offer a model for other businesses to adopt

and if it doesn't, it will be just another failed business - most businesses fail.

This is the free market at work. he is free to adopt his unique business model, and he will eventually be proven right or wrong in his model.

I'm rooting for him

He's been in business for 3 years and it has grown from 3 to 45 employees. Not too shabby.

I think I'm going to apply. Thanks for posting!

Namaste, Mr. Blake Jones. :hi:

Seriously, This sounds like something right out of Buddhist Economics (http://www.schumachersociety.org/buddhist_economics/english.html) which is great. It would be very encouraging to see the company succeed!

This is not how its done some one send him a memo quick:sarcasm:

What a human being this guy is. Don't see many of those running around nowadays! Hat's off! :applause:

How does one go from working with Halliburton, to coming up with a plan that Al Gore could have inspired?

After being an agent of evil, in order to come to terms with that I imagine the gentleman said to himself "I have some karma to make up." Namaste indeed.

you do need some capital to begin a business like this either that or go into debt or some mix of both

I think when you spend a lot of time with not much to do you start thinking about things

In Halliburton or something similar like the rest of the good old boys and girls.

With that, not only do I expect it to fail, I would want nothing to do with it as an organization even were it successful. But were it to spread the availabiltiy of sustainable energy, that would be good.

If it's done well, it works wonderfully.

Is the ONLY way to overcome, this terrible dog eat dog inequality! It will require "educating" more people to a different thought process.
I suspect that the big MBA schools have been teaching, Friedman, Capitolism at its worst, principles, for at least 20-30 years thanks to heavy funding by the neocons!
Certainly my Father Wharton School class '34, had a totally diffferent approach then the recent sharks I see now.
In fact my clients ( for artwork) in the 60's & 70's, were a kinder gentler group!
Th sharks? I HAVE NO CLIENTS NOW.......................they've been gone for about 18 years.

It was hard work (lots of meetings and discussions), but we made better decisions when all parties' interests were part of the solution.

Why do you feel this way? I'm not going to argue about your opinion, I just want to know a little more about it.

Consensus decision making would be good for a small, micro company, but that kind of "leadership" is quickly overwhelmed when the company's size increases.

It works well when companies are small enough to ensure that every employee is kept up to date on the issues and challenges facing every other part of the company. The paradigm falls apart in larger companies simply because you can't realistically expect Frank in accounting to keep up, on a regular basis, with the workload of Shelly and her 50 compatriots in International Sales. At that point, people start voting in the interests of their department, and not in the company as a whole. That leads to poor decision making, gridlock, resentment, and distrust among employees ("WHY does IT need a budget bigger than Accounting, Human Resources, and Shipping combined?!?!", "They want to pay the new system administrator $85,000 a year! I've been a payroll technician for six years and only make $55,000! There's no way I'm supporting that!")

Small towns and organizations can put most significant issues to a popular vote or consensus. But as the scale gets larger, the representative form of government becomes more feasible. Perhaps as a labor managed company grows in size, it would make sense to start electing managers who are supposed to represent the interests of the workforce.

I do think that a small-r republican form of decision authority would work well for large companies, as it would prevent a ruling class of bureaucrats from forming and would serve as a check against "Jump! : How high?" power structures.

You mean required.

If this is a corporation, the decisions have to be made as prescribed by law. This may require a board of directors, which I suppose everybody would be on. This is complicated already.

If it is not a corporation, I suppose it would be a partnership of some kind. So I suppose once you are hired you are a partner. If you leave what happens to your share?

In short, this is workable so long as it is done with a wink of the eye, with the actual owner(s) making final decisions.

It can work; successful models for employee owned mid-sized to large corporations have been around for close to 40 years. The actual owners usually are the ones to make the final decision with the help of internal representitive board members - the number of which tend to increase as the number of departments and products grow.
Employees are basically the stockholders - and in the specific employee-owned corporation I work for (before it went 40% public due to a couple greedheads on the board when the original owner retired), Vanguard ran the company stock, indexing it to the market even though the stock was not traded publically; so not only the amount of revenue the company would bring in, but the increased percentage of employee "investment" due to a more equitable pay structure tends to turn into a very nice profit sharing account for the company. In the 10 years I've worked for the company, when they were employee owned, the stock "split" three times because of successful work; a couple regular workers I know - a shipping clerk, forklift driver, welder, and secretary/receptionist - making close to $200K in stock on top of their regular $12 - $14 hourly salery over a period of 7 years. One shipping manager who had worked for the company over 20 years - a typical lower-mid level manager making perhaps $18 an hour in 2001 - retired in 2004 with close to 1.5 million dollars in company stock.

It behooves an employee-owned company to treat the workforce fairly - and to pay good wages and benefits and work environment to keep each investing worker with the corporation as long as possible - basically insuring that if the employee is a good worker, he or she basically has a job for life.

The only problem with employee owned corporations is when there is a slump in business or when there is a large turnover and (similar to the case of the shipping manager I mentioned above) employees that are leaving take their investment with them, as the rules for employee owned do not allow for retirees or workers that are potentially able to be hired by competitors to have a stake in how the company is run. If salery and benefits are kept equitable to the rest of the industry, there should be little problem running the company at a profit, so long as the business decisions are sound.

This sounds like a good company for investment, if they go public. At the very least, they sound as if they're a company to watch.

Haele

but it's usually not, so I sorta see your point.

it's best when it's done right

iow, it's good when it's good.

The other problem with consensus is that if the business fails, unless all the workers have equal ownership in the company - the decisionmakers aren't equal in the consequences of their decisions.

This tends to be bad. iow, in my company, *i* lose MY money if bad decisions are made, so I'm not going to make decisions by consensus who don't have equal opportunity to lose. They don't have the same incentives to be correct, nor will they face the same consequences if they are wrong. They will, at worst, have to seek another job. The owner (me in this case) would lose my capital investment or even worse go into debt.

I agree with many posters here that it can work (consensus) generally in small companies.

Even large organizations often have micro-groups that often work by consensus, whether formally or not.

This is true, for instance, in police dept's, where 3 officers on scene before addressing a problem, will come up with a plan by consensus. Otoh, when there is one person clearly superior in specific knowledge, like one is a hostage negotiator, and it's a hostage situation, then consensus would take a backseat to deferring to the guy with the specific knowledge.
consensus is one of those things that sounds nifty, but is often impractical or even disastrous, if not impossible to reach

A=A ?

Best = right ?

What if right = bad ?

What if we asked if Nazi's killed 6 million jews in WWII ... that would be 'right' ... but would it be 'best' ?

I am not buying your claim that THAT statement is a tautology ..... The two main terms define different qualities of a subject ... not mutually identical qualities of subject ...

it's not a tautology.

there is actually a term for

what it is.

But it aint tautology. I am drawing a blank, on the correct term, which is kind of sad considering I majored in philosophy.

That's pretty sad. Bad me!

After all, they're obviously anti American communists.

hahaha!

Wouldn't it be grand if all of Halliburton's employees had a similar epiphany?

Whether you call it "free market socialism," "labor-managed capitalism," or "participatory economics," what really matter is the text, not the book cover.

Socialism is a good thing, imho, in many ways, despite it having been given a bad rap. I have friends in Norway and England and Canada who think we are nuts:)

:toast:

When you find their email address, publish it here!

hippy slackers!


:sarcasm:

:kick:

The acid test will be whether this business model WORKS.

It certainly sounds cool, but that's the test that matters.

Minus the six weeks paid time off and the same pay scale for every employee.

The architects, who spent six or seven years of their lives learning very demanding professional skills, weren't really excited about making the same hourly rate as the laborers who could barely comprehend a written sentence and only wanted to burn a joint every hour or so, and MAYBE work a bit--or maybe not so much.

The frank, open and honest idea was supposed to be a strong part of the company ethos but was undermined by good old "human nature". For example, people who only want you to be open and honest with THEM when you're saying how wonderful they are. And nobody really liked frank because he was too blunt in expressing his opinions.

The consensus decision-making was pretty cool, especially when everybody was paying attention at meetings and knew what they were talking about. Otherwise, it got shitty when a third of the co-owners were catching up on their beauty sleep or disrupting the discussions to tell personal anecdotes that had nothing whatsoever to do with the topic.

The environmental emphasis was a big part of the group direction until the government subsidies for solar and energy-efficient home improvements went away. Those who were really committed to that methodology went their own ways and became pioneers in the field. The rest of us either tried to do the best we could in the prevailing "there's plenty of energy" atmosphere or totally gave in to "standard" building practices.

The company is still in business but has changed dramatically from the original model.

I wish Blake Jones all the best in his endeavor. It can be very rewarding despite the difficulties.

...even work in America any more?

Couldn't Jones at least manipulate some junk bonds or somp'n?

It just ain't Amurkan if it doesn't involve ripping somebody off!

Equal pay scales...I'm assuming that means all different fields of skill have the same potential opportunity for promotion?

Probably set up similar to the old civil service, which was pretty fair at entry level - it would only get wiggy when the employee started working to get promoted into positions that were subjective (manager level).
New hires should only be in the first two levels, entry or mid, with mid-level only available for new employees who have a quantifiable level of prior experience in a competitive business or field that will require very little training to come up to speed at the level they are hired into.

I could see it this way: -

1.a. Defined entry (or apprentice) level unskilled (basic OTJ training/high school or GED) starts at "a" level; merit pay advancement/promotion to next pay level requirements clearly defined.
1.b. Defined entry (apprentice) level skilled (degree or certification required) starts at "b" level; merit pay, etc, etc same as above.
No difference between "management/administrative", "logistics" or "engineering" disciplines, all skilled workers are paid at the same base point for the same merit level. Start out at say, $10 hourly for unskilled and $14 hourly skilled, each job type has it's clearly defined requirements for pay advances. Remember, entry apprentice level will not be jumping into "project management" right away.
Part time/temporary entry level should have fewer benefits rather than lower hourly pay. Consensus participation input weighted to participation at work.

2.a. Defined mid level (or journeyman)level unskilled (OJT or company-defined certification level, no training or professional certification)starts at "c" level; additional company training and benefits provided to bring the worker into a well-defined lead, skilled or professional level. Advancement and promotion requirements clearly defined.
2.b Defined mid-level skilled at "d" level, all other considerations same as for 2.a
Starting mid level should be a $6 or $7 an hour difference between skilled and unskilled, say $15 and $23 an hour.
Part time/temporary journeyman level to have fewer benefits rather than lower pay.
This should be the top level for unskilled labor. By now, the company will either have trained the unskilled worker enough to take some sort of journeyman management job or the employee will have hopefully used his or her time to take a degree or certification program to be able to meet the definitions for "skilled" journeyman labor.

3.a. Professional level - should be broken out into Professional skills (engineer, mechanic, scientist, writer) or Professional Management (manager, contracts, logistics, finance). Both should have clearly defined benchmarks for advancement, and should be salaried at the same levels. Start at, oh, $55K a year, merit up to $125K a year for senior professional staff/co-owners who have been at the company since inception. The majority of professional level employees should be from internal promotion - with the exception of those who came in as partners at the inception of the company. Any outside hire professional level employees should be consultants only.
If the company accepts "consultants" - basically a "work at will" professional for a specified, the consultant should be paid an hourly breakdown of the salary for their merit level, a minimal benefits package, and no consensus weight in the company decision making.

Include a decent retirement, medical, flex spending and employee assistance benefits package, and set up a profit share to encourage a continuous, loyal - or heck "looking out for #1" - work force, and you should be able to maintain a consistent, profitable company with a chance to grow over the long term.

I've seen many small companies start out and go on for a good, long (20 - 30 years on average) run using this basic workforce pay and benefits model(of course, this is usually before the owner retires or someone gets greedy and sells out to one of the big boy conglomerate corporations)

Haele

:toast:

May more people be so inspired.

W.L. Gore (yes, the manufacturers of Gore-Tex) doesn't have job titles (everyone's business card says "Associate") and they do a LOT of consensus decision-making.

(And that's not just PR stuff from Gore; I worked closely with them when I was in the electronics business, and they were a fairly large customer for us.)

But they DON'T pay everyone the same salary. The idea of the supbject company doing that strikes me as not being a great one.

Redstone

I've dealt with them for cables for electronics. Their quality is amazing and customer service is responsive.

Here's an amazing article on Terri Kelly, the low-key CEO of W.L. Gore.
http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/98/wikn.html

dealing with them.)

Redstone

:sarcasm:

Thanks for the thread, underpants.

I'm thinking you would never make as much as you do now given that all his employees are on the same pay scale.

but your point is well taken

He is way too Demming for the Neo Con community.

"All major decisions would be made by consensus of all company employees"

Good luck, but it sounds like some bad judgment. Please tell me how unskilled laborers are going to have much of anything to add to the consensus of company decision making. Conversely, I don't see white shirt execs digging a proper metaphorical ditch either.

If he finds a way to do that then good for him. Unfortunately not all people are created equal.

Perhaps janitorial or night security staff, but those are most likely contracted out if the employees aren't expected to provide their own janitorial or security efforts.

I currently work for a contract-based technology/research/installation type corporation; even our lowest ranked entry level or part-time employees - the painters, fabricators, stockers, heck, the delivery truck driver - have to have some knowledge and qualification training as to how their work affects not only what their department is producing but the contract they are getting paid under, as well as how the company works - there are no "unskilled" laborers in a employee-owned or consensus based company, no matter how large or small.

If you're installing something that requires safety measures and standards to install and operate, even your ditchdigger for your grounding lines and pipe-laying will have to be trained in basic fabrication and electrical processes, as well some basic problem-resolution and customer awareness skills. Your stock clerk has to be able to quickly recognize and react to QA and logistics issues that will affect his or her job.

Many "white shirt execs" work their way up through the ranks in employee owned companies - since the company in the OP is a start-up, chances are the only employees who are not familiar with digging ditches are the accounting and clerical staff. I know many architects and engineers that do have familiarity with the grease, nuts and bolts of their job - the best ones know how important to know what it is their laborers are required to do to get any build off the ground - including how long it might take one average worker to dig a 25 ft trench in, say, decomposed granite soil during a winter freeze, what sort of tool degradation, safety measures, or other delays a planner needs to be aware - even down to how many breaks that worker will need to work productively.
Otherwise, your estimates for getting a job done run the risk of significant delays because some legacy baby wanker right out of an Ivy League "gentleman's" diploma mill thinks he or she knows more than the machinist and all they need to say is "git e'r done" and their estimated schedule magically comes to fruition without any environmental, time or cost considerations.

Haele

All your points are interesting, thanks.

I love your cats. I have four myself.

I bow to That which is within you.

Course first I'd have to make sure my business could afford it.

I'm guessing this guy isn't publicly traded, right? That usually puts an end to all of this.

company it requires a lot of effort on every person's part IN ADDITION TO their regular work day. Plus, it takes a commitment to make yourself knowledgeable about many aspects of business, for example, production, finance, inventory control, line management, company-level management, marketing, human resource issues (pay levels, benefits, work conditions, workplace law, safety, etc, etc). Most people--not all--are proficient and experienced in one or two of those aspects, so there's a huge amount of empathy and respect required when people sit down to work out problems and chart the path of a company.

Consensus building takes time, and usually a good facilitator who can keep things headed in a positive direction.

This sounds like the classic co-op business method or employee-owner model. There are lots of those types of companies in existence, with many varieties of management structures.

It is extremely difficult to have a non-hierarchical business structure because the jobs that require the most expertise, experience and skill in management may be totally unsuited to a person who is highly skilled and experienced in production. And vice versa. That's how the so-called division of labor evolved. This is not to say that a model that allows for more input by ALL levels of workers will not work, because they do EVERY DAY. With the right combination of people and leadership this company could very well survive and thrive.

As a business owner and former employee-owner I'd like to point out that there are many, many business people--in large and small companies--who do provide a good work environment, good benefits, good pay, and good advancement opportunities for their employees.

for work. I live in the NY metro area.

It was by a big oil exec. He was talking about how we need to develop alternative forms of energy. He also said that he would be continuing these commercials with more info as time goes on. I don't know for sure, but, I think he is paying for these commercials himself.

I was pretty excited about this.

I do think that positive things are coming down the pike.

I am so grateful.

Someone is doing it correctly!!

I'm so excited by the ideas KSR has put forth in his novels!

to his vision

:)

This sounds like it's *all good*!

What an inspiring business plan. Wake me if I'm dreaming!

It SOUNDS good on the surface, but I'm pretty sure his electrical engineer is REAL happy to make the same money as the guy who boxes the finished panels.

I can think of one way this would work: the owner of the company is the engineer. Otherwise, your professional staff is going to eventually realize they're making the same amount as the guys with high school diplomas...y'know, Arco Solar is hiring...

It was good, too.

One is that new environmental challenges present new opportunities for green growth. That concept is not new. Even mainstream companies like UPS are more and more implementing green procedures and technologies because it makes business sense. Just because George Bush is an idiot and has never run a successful organization is his life, doesn't mean that the rest of the people running things aren't starting to get the picture.

The second concept is business organization. The story makes it sound like this is an intrinsic part of the green business mentality. It's not. Treating employees well, giving them a say in their area of expertise, and trying to nip interpersonal problems in the bud are all good things. All kinds of good companies do these things, green or not. He seems to be taking it to another level. It may even work here because the type of people attracted to a company like this would be a self-selecting group that would probably get along with each other and be open to these concepts. But I highly doubt it could transfer across the board to mainstream business.

I believe in realistic idealism, that is, improving the situation based on reality, not on fantasy. Most of this is an over-idealized fantasy of human nature and what it 'should' be. And a cruel one at that. Paying people the same, regardless of the quality of job they do or the difficulty of their job or their prior qualifications, is absolutely ludicrous and unethical. Someone is skating by and someone is getting screwed.

Major decisions have always been made by people who were qualified to make them. For many millennia, that was the elders. People who had lived life, figured out how things worked, been shown to have good judgment and therefore given the final say in the life and death decision of what the tribe did. You earned that spot. Giving people the opportunity to provide input is great, but the final decision should be left to those individuals or group most capable. If I were in a lifeboat, and with me was an expert in seafaring and another an expert in survival techniques while I was a shoe salesmen, should I have an equal say? I would hope not.