Resources
Episode Transcript
Lisa: So Karin, maybe you could start by telling listeners a little bit about what your mission is and why it is that you do this work?
Karin: Yes, so it started way back when I was working in the tourism and hotel industry, and I was studying marketing. There I learned about service management, and all in the books about service management they said that the quality of service depended on to which degree employees were involved and had authority over their business. And then I sort of discovered the difference between what were in the books—the theory—and what was actually happening in the workplaces. This was intriguing me like, “Why don’t we do it as proved in the books?”
And somewhere there in the eighties, I came across Ricardo Semco’s book also, and I was totally fascinated by his work. I had work as marketing director in a corporate business and really hated it, started to hate hierarchies, and I found it really slow and hindering. So from this, I developed this keen interest in challenging hierarchies. So my mission has become to create workplaces that are more suitable for human beings and where human beings can be taken into account, work and be more satisfied and also be more fulfilled and treated with respect. So it’s all about creating workplaces, and when you do that, I think the work will become better.
Lisa: And you were one of the early pioneers of experimenting with ideas of bottom-up and self-management. What were some of the key insights that were going on in your life at that time that led you to develop this approach and start to put it into practice?
Karin: Yeah, so before I got the chance to try out these ideas, I ended up coaching a lot of people that were unemployed because we had a big economic crisis in the 90s. There I realized that people that were looking for work—what was in the way for them often were their mindset or their attitude, their relationship to what they were going to contribute and so on.
So I started to experiment with a dialogue way of having a dialogue with people so that they could change attitude. Also, when I met people in groups with unemployed people, the working climate in those groups were quite horrible because they didn’t expect anything of those activities. I knew that if we had this working climate, we would never get anywhere and these people would never get anywhere or have any results. So there I tried to learn how to shift the working climate from being resigned and hostile to becoming one where people participated because they wanted to participate, and then they saw value upon it.
Those learnings were really useful then when I got my first chance to try out the ideas, which was in a small hotel where I, together with the CEO who also read Ricardo’s book, worked with her staff group. That was the first attempt or the first chance I got to try those ideas about giving away authority. We had great results out of that.
What happened there in the hotel was like a proof to me that this was so powerful because I could see the shift in people’s attitude and the engagement that that released, and the degree of responsibility was increasing incredibly. So it was more astonishing than I could have imagined before.
This led to me having new assignments, this time as CEO, especially in one company called Kommenko, which was an education company, training company with 15 people. They had never succeeded financially, but they were owned by an organization so they didn’t really have to be financially successful. But here I could really experiment even more to give them authority, but also to shift their working climate because the working climate was one of distrust, gossip, and really poisonous.
So with that, this time it was the opportunity to be totally, fully out, and the business results were totally unbelievable there. We went from big, big loss to big profit, and it also showed to be sustainable because when I withdrew as a CEO after 8 months only, they chose—the group just picked one person to be CEO, and she was the CEO then for 7 years and they never failed again really.
So I had some early attempts that then led to me doing this for other businesses, especially in the restaurant business or the restaurant sector, and those were my failings I call them. Because people really were enthusiastic and wanted to do this, but when we did it in reality, they either didn’t like it because they lost control, or they couldn’t develop the skills needed to lead in such a way.
So it’s really, really challenging to do it fully out. And one of the learnings was, if you do it fully out—like really give away the authority and there’s no one above the team that decides—the effects that you get are so much larger than you can ever get if you do it halfway or a little bit. I realized this very early, so I would never ever go back to doing it halfway through or something, because the effects and the results are so astonishing and really good. The results when it comes to money, the results when it comes to sustainability, the results when it comes to personal growth, and also low turnover of staff or sick leave and all those things that business owners want. That’s all you can dream of really, so I couldn’t see why you shouldn’t do that.
But in the restaurants, doing it with other owners was really, really tricky. And out of those experiences, I got to the conclusion that if I would do it again, I would need to have the full power or the full control. So I decided to buy companies. Then around 2009, I started together with my partner to find companies to buy. So we bought a few companies in the healthcare business and we sort of transformed them from companies or businesses with managers to totally self-organized.
The last case I did was a call center that was really, really hierarchical, had been for 20 years, still a small company with 18 people in it. This was the biggest learning and the biggest challenge because it was also clear that in an IT business or in a training company, the people working there are there for a reason—they like their work. Whereas in a call center, people sort of have maybe just ended up there for some reason, and they were really not passionate about what they do. In a business like that or sectors like that, it’s much more of a challenge to get it to work.
The thing about those processes, which is my other big finding apart from giving away the authority, is that the working climate is so important to have it work. So what you start with is to create the working climate and go from one that’s not working to install or get to one where you have a really high level of communication, where you surface stuff or conflicts or different views of things.
Lisa: Yeah, like different preferences on how to work.
Karin: And true collaboration. If you are going to reach that, you have to communicate in a totally different way, being much more open, being vulnerable. So you’re not just your strengths, but also your weaknesses and pitfalls, and talk about them and build on trust a lot. And to build on trust, you have to sort of come from trust first.
So that work, building a sustainable, cultural climate is really a main focus in all those processes. And taking a group of people that have not been trusted or respected, that’s a big challenge and it takes time to have it. But the benefit of it is also big because people grow personally. It doesn’t only affect their work life but their personal life—they get a different view of themselves, and that’s often much more satisfying than being profitable at the company money-wise.
Lisa: If I were to summarize one of the principles of your approach, it seems that it’s much less about reinventing structures and a lot more about looking at people’s way of being, their mindset, and leadership—kind of distributed leadership amongst the team. In the case of the call center, for example, could you share some stories maybe of what the work that you did with them actually looked like? How did you coach those people from having a working climate that was unproductive to one that was more productive, and for those people to work in self-organizing ways, which is quite a radical shift?
Karin: Yes, structures are not so important because structures will take care of themselves once you give the authority. So a group will distinguish what structures are in the way or hindering their work, so that will sort of transform along the way. Therefore, you don’t have to focus on them, just give away authority.
The work looks like, or often does, like a group of people who are very clear that they want a certain kind of climate, and they very early in the process realize that they need to have a higher level of communication. So the work is really sort of to confront the gap between what they want and what they have, and challenge people to be brave enough to be more straight with each other, to find their habit of resolving stuff and be personal, and train people to do it all over and over again until it’s there, until there is a new culture. So that’s one thing.
And another more structural thing was that in the process of running the business, they got frustrated because it wasn’t, at some point, working so well. So they analyzed and saw that they didn’t know where time went, because this was a business where you have to keep track of time to be able to bill the customers. So one quite common example is when a group distinguishes a problem and then they come up with a solution. In this case, it was like, “We have to track down what we do during the days and see what’s happening in reality.” So they invented a system to see how much time they spent on different things, and they did follow-ups to become successful.
And the difference between a manager installing a control system like this is that this group was really aware that they needed to do that to become successful, and that the success had to do with the sustainability of their business. So I usually say, or often say, that this mental ownership was developed. And when there’s the mental ownership, all sorts of solutions and ideas and systems and factors are created in service of the team.
Lisa: And having been an owner yourself and a CEO of some of these companies, you know, where you’re in a real leadership role or a role of authority, what have some of the lessons been for you along the way? What pitfalls have you fallen into in trying to be this empowering kind of leader?
Karin: Two that stand out is I’ve been hesitant in being as radical as I inside see that I should. Like when it comes to managers, when I acquire a business or take it over, there often are managers involved, and in many cases I have had, I didn’t get rid of the managers or didn’t degrade them, which I regret. It was because I was too optimistic about the managers’ ability to learn how to lead in a total anti-hierarchical way. That’s really, really hard for people in general. So today I would suggest, if you want to do it as radical as I would like it to be, to totally abandon the idea of having managers from the beginning.
The other finding or pitfall is to underestimate the challenge of shifting the culture, especially when you start with a culture that’s really sort of polluted, if I may say. It’s much easier if you start anew. Of course, if you are in a startup, you can set the standards from the beginning. But still, even if you are in a startup, it’s a challenge. And that I can see also around me, that the most usual pitfall is to underestimate the challenge of creating a culture.
Also, people have no relationship to a truly productive culture, so they don’t know what it should look like. So one common picture of a productive culture is when everybody’s happy all the time and sort of like jump around and have a lot of fun at work, which is not at all the picture of a productive climate. It’s much more challenging sometimes to have these straight and uncomfortable conversations with people and be brave. It’s much harder work and much more fulfilling in the end, but not in that sort of fancy way.
Lisa: Because I hear a lot of stories about that it’s challenging, particularly for leaders. It means letting go of something, it means letting go of control, it means letting go sometimes of being the hero, which can be a nice feeling. What, for you, have been the benefits of being an owner of an organization that is completely self-organizing?
Karin: Well, my first manager job was in the hotel business, and I also got to recruit my own staff. So from the beginning, I was a really dominating leader, very controlling one. So I’ve gone from that to something completely different. One thing that has helped me is my laziness, which is very good to have. But you can’t expand things if you are like a traditional leader, or it’s much more difficult in a way.
So the expansion and the growth comes with letting go of stuff, to release creativity. And I think the best benefit is to just have to tend to things that you really like to do. I don’t have to do the dumb stuff, I don’t have to do the controlling, which is also dull and boring. So it’s a lot of creativity for me to not be necessary or nothing is dependent on me, and I can continue to be creative.
Lisa: For the people who are interested in new ways of working and having more self-organizing cultures, what would your advice to them be? What do you see that’s missing currently, or what are your anxieties about how things are evolving?
Karin: I think to focus on developing the communication in one way or another—the feedback training, conflict resolution, deciding things together, personal development in different forms. But that’s really a key to reach this higher level of communication. For managers or people or owners, it’s not an ordinary coach training because that won’t do, but it’s really sort of developing the skills of listening, the skills of listening really deeply.
Lisa: And what is your dream for the future of work? What do you hope it will look like?
Karin: Well, I would hope that it looked like this was the normal way of running workplaces and companies and corporates, that that was the paradigm we were in, so that we left the hierarchical paradigm. Yeah, so that would be normal.
Lisa: And what do you think that gives people, the world, society?
Karin: I would think that many challenges that we now face would be, if not solved, but improved. Like gender equality would be done because that would be resolved in the process, because diversity is like a side effect of this way of working. People and talents will emerge when you don’t have titles or hierarchies.
Also environmental challenges, because businesses will be more aware and more wisdom will be released out of teams because more people will contribute, and more wisdom will be put into the decisions. So I think most of the stuff we are struggling with as a society will be impacted in a positive way by us operating differently at our workplaces.
Lisa: And to those leaders who maybe feel a bit sick or anxious at the thought of giving away all of their control or authority as you say, what would be your response?
Karin: I think we should put much more focus on what’s your inner drive. All people, managers or not—but I meet a lot of managers, successful managers, and maybe they reach the age of 45, 50, and they think, “Is this it? What’s next? Is this what’s it?” or “What’s the meaning of this?” And we always end up that they need to find their passion or their calling, or what they want to contribute to the world.
And if more managers and if more people started to pay attention at an early age, maybe when they’re seven years old or 14 at least, if they can sort of find their path or their contribution, that would fulfill their working life from a totally different angle than doing the careers.
Lisa: Yeah, because I guess a part of this way of working is that you drop the mask, you stop pretending to be manager X or whatever. We stopped performing a role, and it’s much more about honesty and bringing your whole self to work, you know, as Frederick Laloux says. So it’s much more authentic, and if it’s not the right place, then you know you’re not in the right organization. There’s something about confronting that.
Karin: Yeah, and if you’re good at organizing, like many managers are, if you do that as a self-expression instead of coming from a controlling position, that would be in a whole different context.
Lisa: Yeah, there’s a key theme about choice, I think, in management which is kind of radical, and most people don’t think about in workplaces. So that if people choose that that person organizes as part of their role, that’s very different to them doing it by default, like it’s a divine right or something.
Karin: Exactly, yeah. You’re right on it. Like doing it as self-expression is something else. I see so many managers that they just don’t reflect on what they’re doing—they’re just doing things automatically, driven even by the old paradigm.
Lisa: And what about—because I speak to managers who say, “Yeah, but what if people make a stupid decision?” or, you know, how do you—what do you say to people who it seems don’t have much faith in their people or don’t relate to their potential?
Karin: A common misunderstanding is that you abdicate and you have to stand by and watch people doing stupid mistakes. That’s not the case because you’re still there, but instead of directing people in the right direction, you give the team feedback. So if you see a risk for big mistakes, you can always say, “Well, when you talk about this opportunity or this decision, I get really scared because what I foresee is this.” You still participate, but not from a position.
So there are lots of misunderstandings on how the new way of working is. It’s also not like everybody can do whatever they like, which is also a common misunderstanding—that you get all the freedom to do anything you like. But that’s not the case because you also have the responsibility and you have a framework. You can’t maybe change the business idea all of a sudden.
Lisa: I guess in a summary, it is moving from a parent-child paradigm to an adult-adult paradigm. That doesn’t mean a free-for-all, that means that people are accountable, that people hold each other to promises, for example. So it’s a very different thing than I think some people—end up in the opposite when they reject hierarchy. Startups, for example, end up in a very polite culture and friendly culture, but that’s also not adult.
Karin: Exactly. And if you look at the team that looks like more employed children, then you can’t imagine the potential the same people can show or the power or capability they can demonstrate, because you don’t have that experience. So it could be really sort of, “How could this work with those people that I know are useless?” So that’s the hard part, to sort of pass on or try to picture how it could be.
Lisa: And you mentioned that for you, this there’s a magic in doing this fully, where you really—where you’re the owner of an organization, for example, and you really have the authority to give away all power and decisions so that the team really is responsible for finances, for example, for all decisions made. Why is it that there’s such a different level of results when you do it that way, the kind of full way?
Karin: I don’t know exactly the reason for it, but over and over again it shows like, if you put the whole thing on the table in the team, it’s like, “It’s ours and it’s nobody else’s, and it depends on us.” And so people get really, really engaged when that’s the case, and then the responsibility comes. I can’t really account for the theoretical reasons why, but it just happens every time I do that.
Lisa: Do you have any final words of wisdom that you would like to put out there, share with people who were maybe struggling with having the courage to take that first step, for example?
Karin: So, apart from really focusing on training in communication as I said before, there is no right way. So every organization has to find their way of structuring or taking the steps. So there is no map, which could also be liberating. So don’t look too much on others and concepts or what people say, but still focus on the communication.
Lisa: Thank you.
