A Business and Co-operative Future For Weaver Street Market By Geoffrey Gilson docx

“Informal Intimacy”: A Business and Co-operative Future For Weaver Street Market Geoffrey Gilson August 2007 Introduction – Policy Governance I have been with Weaver Street Market (WSM) for something over two years now. About a year ago, I began formulating some thoughts about the future structure of WSM, both as a business and as a co-operative. This document represents the sum of those ideas. I don’t pretend that the document is a detailed blueprint. I merely offer it as a trigger, to help start a conversation among the stakeholders in WSM. Let me say straight away that my style is informal. So, I apologize upfront if this document does not read like other policy development strategies or organizational evaluations you may have read. Indeed, it may seem a little rough around the edges in parts – I was more concerned with getting something out, than making it all polished and streamlined. If this document is being read by someone who is not grounded in WSM or policy governance, then it’s probably a good idea first to read through the WSM website (www.weaverstreetmarket.coop ), and in particular, the sections entitled “About Us” (www.weaverstreetmarket.coop/about/index.php ) and “Become an Owner” (www.weaverstreetmarket.coop/owner/index.php ). The John Carver Policy Governance model (www.carvergovernance.com/model.htm ) provides opportunity for what may seem to some like an endless intellectual discussion about the balance between ENDS (www.weaverstreetmarket.coop/about/wsm.php and www.weaverstreetmarket.coop/about/coops.php ) and MEANS; whether a Board should be prescriptive, or merely exclusive (about results that are undesirable); the full extent of the monitoring function; and so on. As interesting as that discussion may be for Retreats, Board meetings, or just chats over coffee (!), what it means to me immediately is that I’m not entirely sure how to go about raising thoughts (my own) which have been brewing for some time, and which some may see as a full-blooded, up-and-down revamp of the corporate and co-operative structure of WSM and its Board. Do I submit all of those thoughts in one go, or in parts? Under this item, or that? During policy review, or monitoring? Well, rather than give myself an excruciating (and undoubtedly self-sustaining!) migraine, I have decided that the easiest thing is simply to lay out my thoughts all at once, and let time and natural process (organically) do the remainder. This way, you know what is in my mind, and you can decide for yourselves what you want to discuss, and what not; and when; and how. I would apologize for the length of the document, but I have a lot I wish to address. If I didn’t think it important, I wouldn’t be saying it. You may not agree with it, but that does not mean I’m not passionate about it. The way I was raised was simple: if you believe something, believe it vigorously. But believe it without disrespecting the views of others. And what is it exactly that I believe so passionately? Well, in a nutshell, in the two years that I’ve worked at WSM, I’ve become particularly interested in what can be done structurally with WSM to retain the ‘small co-op’ feel after all the expansion that is underway. Specifically, I’ve wondered whether the MEANS/ENDS John Carver Policy Governance model, as originally adapted by WSM for use when it was just one unit in Carrboro, is still rigidly applicable to a co-op that is now aggressively becoming both multi-unit and multi-million. Everything evolves. The organic movement, the sustainable movement, even the co- operative movement – all have evolved in the past twenty years. As has the size of WSM. Wouldn’t it be a little crass immediately to assume that everything else evolves, but we shouldn’t look to see if our policy governance structure also should be evolving? Now, the answer, after a deal of worthy discussion, may well be ‘leave it all alone.’ But, surely we should at least have a wide-ranging conversation to see if there are ways that we can modify our policy governance structure, within the model set by John Carver, such that it becomes more responsive and more accountable? And before the purists run screaming for the hills, let’s not confuse ‘structure’ with ‘model.’ I’m not suggesting that we move away from the John Carver Policy Governance ‘model.’ I’m suggesting that we review our policy governance ‘structure,’ to ensure that it is still commensurate with the John Carver Policy Governance ‘model,’ in a way that maximizes responsiveness, accountability and internal communication, within the new circumstances that WSM finds itself. Responsiveness and Accountability I think we can all agree that Weaver Street is so much more than just a grocery store. It is more than a corporation; it is a co-operative. It is more than just a shopping stop; it is a community events center. It is more than just a bottom line; it is a social statement and a pressure group for those statements. I would not presume to produce a document that reviews every aspect of what makes Weaver Street so…Weaver Street! Perhaps a little boringly (!), I limit myself pretty much to discussing corporate and co-operative structures and policies. However, it could be argued that they represent the most important aspect, since they provide the vehicle within which all the rest is able to travel safely. Leaving all the grand philosophizing to one side, and in my humble opinion, the structures and policies that make a co-operative corporation truly effective are those that allow for maximum responsiveness and for meaningful accountability. I believe, for example, that every single person associated with a co-operative corporation should be accountable to someone. And that includes customers. They should be accountable also. Which may sound a tad radical. I’ll come back to that specific point later in this document. But, let me expand a little upon the responsive/accountable theme. We are fond in Weaver Street of graphics to make a point. So, imagine if you will a chart that is circular, when talking about lines of responsiveness and accountability. Not just vertical. Worker obviously is accountable to management. Think of workers being on the outside of the circle. Now, management should also be responsive to workers. Both should be responsive to customers and consumers, who are beyond the edge of the circle. As one moves inside the circle, one moves up the management food chain, until we reach the Board. Each level of management is accountable to the level above, and should be responsive to the level below. Finally, senior management should be directly accountable to the Board (which, again, may be a departure from where we are at the moment – and again, I come back to that later). The Board should, of course, be responsive to the needs of the co-op. but it’s more than that. And here we not only move back out again, but also into a third dimension (blimey, sounds like “Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, doesn’t it?). The Board is accountable not only to the owners (both consumer and worker), but it should also be responsive to all workers and to all customers. So should every level of management – and worker. I’ve read and re-read this section, and ended up asking myself, ‘what am I trying to convey?’ I think the answer is this: when contemplating this document, don’t allow yourself to compartmentalize the workings of WSM too much. The Board is not separate from management, and management separate from worker, and worker separate from owner, and owner separate from customer – and then back again! We are all organically linked, in relationships that work in many different directions. Now, if I haven’t completely lost you, hold those thoughts, and let’s examine the context in which I believe all this responsiveness and accountability works best – namely, “Informal Intimacy.” “Informal Intimacy”: The Essence of Co-operation Look, I could jabber on for pages about charts, and lines of responsiveness and accountability, and definitions of co-operation. But the fact is this. What makes responsiveness and accountability work in a co-operative – what makes a co-operative such a great corporate structure in principle – is immediacy. When Weaver Street was just one unit in Carrboro, people came in every morning and immediately saw their bosses. Management immediately saw the Board. If a customer had a complaint, they could make it to the person responsible immediately. There were no lines of authority. Everything was as ‘local’ as you could get. Owners, customers, management and workers all in the same small box. There was little need for formal structure and endless planning and reams of documents. Everything could be achieved over cups of coffee. This is the essence of “Informal Intimacy.” I know I oversimplify, but the point is still good. A co-operative works best (and this is what makes co-operatives such a potentially dynamic form of corporation) when matters can be addressed informally, casually, by a couple of people talking intimately. Naturally, as one grows from one unit to three, and now to five, that immediacy – the informality, the intimacy – is lost. One has to rely more upon documentation and reaction to provide response and accountability all around the circular graphic. The primary thrust of this document is to examine what we can do to recover as much of that informal intimacy as possible. And if we can’t, what we can or should be doing instead. Now, let me say right here, you may vigorously disagree even at this stage. Great! This is a discussion document. If it provokes someone into coming up with something radically different, so much the better. Let’s start at the bottom of the ladder. Oops. Misspoke. I mean the outer edge of the three dimensional circular graphic. With our loyal workers – of whom, of course, I am one. Department Intra-action It is sometimes a little too easy to sit in the sanctity of a Board meeting, put forward a policy item, and assume that ‘operations’ (the MEANS side of things) is some Borg-like apparatus (sorry about the constant sci-fi references), which instantly knows, as one hive, exactly how to implement the policy, all the way around the chain of command. In the same measure, it is all too easy to assume that one man, the General Manager, when reporting during monitoring, is able to speak with one voice, with total and complete knowledge and understanding of all that happens under his command and why. I have enormous respect for our General Manager, but I think he would be the first to leave omnipotence to the Almighty! Every link in any human chain (or circle!) is…well…human. And it is subject to all the subjective foibles of humanity. As we used to say about computers, the information out is only as good as the information in. So, is there something we can suggest that would help our General Manager (and the rest of the operations management) in their job of gathering information? And which would also help our workers and Worker-Owners better to understand what the Board is saying – at the sharp end! I think that there is. And I believe it to be particularly apposite, bearing in mind the expansion. Back to the concept of Informal Intimacy… When we were one unit, managers and our General Manager could get a sense of what was going right, and what wrong, what people felt, whether policy was properly being implemented, and the like, by a hands-on walk-through the one co-op unit every morning. Or whenever. More and more, as we expand, and senior management and the Board become more ‘remote’ from the sharp end in every unit – as time presses – so it is that we have to rely more and more on ‘remote’ and ‘reactive’ management tools. Such as the Mystery Shopper Report – a brilliantly conceived, but still impersonal, decision-input mechanism. Or co-worker performance reviews. And so on. I wonder whether a more immediate and more effective means of two-way communication might not be more department meetings? From my own perspective, I think that every department would benefit from having at least one department meeting every two months. That they need be no longer than one hour in length. And that at least half of each meeting could be set aside for workers to raise their own points. So that they are not merely management-presentation sessions. Management could get across figures. Workers could be ‘educated’ in matters flowing from the Board. They would also have an immediate and informally intimate forum in which they would increasingly feel more relaxed about sharing their true feelings about what was going on. This, in turn, would provide the General Manager with invaluable raw ‘intel’ so as to be able more informatively to report back in the monitoring process. It could be argued that the management chain provides all the ‘intel’ that the General Manager should need. And that management manages by managing, not by collective discussion and action. I would say that management has its own imperatives that are not the same as workers’. And that while we are not a collective, a co-operative is not just an ownership model; it is a business and an economic model too. Employed properly, co-operative principles and practices, including an element of democracy in the workplace, can assist in departments being more effective, and maximizing their contribution. It is workers who are the primary point of retail inter-action with the customer. They are the ones who truly represent the values of the co-op to consumers. The Board should want to ensure that their input is received, that their views are valued and respected, and that they, in turn, are fully prepared, in every way, to act as ambassadors of WSM the grocery experience, and WSM the co-op. Annual Co-op Meeting Every fall, there is a meeting of all of the workers in WSM. It lasts a couple of hours, and to be honest, and perhaps naturally, bearing in mind the increasing size, spread and complexity of WSM, it has become more of a management-presentation session, than a further opportunity for workers to give feedback (ultimately to the benefit of the Board’s monitoring function), and to feel that they are participating democratically in the affairs of their co-op. I would suggest that half of this meeting be given over to matters raised by workers. And that those issues be decided by a suggestions and voting process before the Annual Meeting. I think it very important that those involved with our co-op be given a real opportunity to make decisions from time to time. It is not enough that they are consulted. A suggestions box is not participatory democracy. And in that same vein, I think it important that those present at the Annual Meeting be allowed to vote on something, and feel that the vote is in some way binding on someone. Open Forums and Consultation Exercise The previous section was written before the Annual Co-op Meeting of August 27, 2007. A short while prior to that meeting, I sent an e-mail to Human Resources, a copy of which is included in the Appendices to this document. I was delighted that the questions in that e-mail were the first to be read out at the meeting; that our General Manager answered both questions in the affirmative; and that he kindly suggested that the agenda of the meeting was in response to those questions. Whatever else may happen, I am proud that, even in this small way, and while still only a candidate for Worker-Owner Director, my suggestions may have made some small contribution to improving the communication structures within WSM. For the first time, the Annual Co-op Meeting incorporated a full half-hour of open and direct questions and answers between co-op workers and senior management. That suggestion was expanded upon with the proposal for monthly open forums. It is my hope that these might complement department meetings and a revival of the Worker- Owner Program, which I discuss some more in the next section. I agree that it would be useful to have these open forums address specific issues, so that attendees may know beforehand what it is they will be discussing. At the same time, I hope it will still be open to employees simply to raise points once they are there. At the Annual Co-op Meeting, I made the point that it would be helpful to have the appropriate senior management present at each open forum, so that matters raised could immediately be addressed by those responsible for resolving them. My theme throughout this document, and with my actions over the past year within WSM, has been to encourage meaningful two-way communication, response and accountability. The open forums will achieve little if they are merely opportunities for worker ‘grunts’ to talk to each other. By the same token, I agree that it might be useful to have independent moderators at the open forums. WSM already uses the services of a meeting facilitator for its Board meetings. More than that, I believe it might be helpful if notes are taken, and then distributed to senior management and Board members, so that as many people as possible, up and down the ‘ladder,’ are informed of feelings within the co-op. Indeed, it wouldn’t hurt if Board members were to attend, and even address the odd open forum. [...]... Manager (and all of his equally hard-working store and department managers) all the ‘investment’ he and they need to be able to realize further and increased success in his and their efforts There needs to be a greater distribution of financial information, down to the workers, and up to the Board, so that we may all assist the Operations Manager and other managers to achieve the best they can by way of... Board.] Some years ago, in England, there was a very unpopular, and eventually unsuccessful, move to change the way in which taxes were raised locally It became known as the Poll Tax, because of opponents’ claims that it was a back door method of making people pay to vote In the few months that I have been a candidate for Director of WSM, I have had occasion to talk with consumers and workers, not all... $22m for new school buildings He and I then approached his single largest donor – a founding Director of Home Depot – to be our new Fund-raising Chair And our fund-raising took off from there With all this expansion, we are having to concentrate a lot of our efforts on raising capital and loans Perhaps, we could have a Vice Chair who could act as a similar beacon to potential capital and loans, say,... Stakeholders and Elections I am writing this section on the evening of October 14th, 2007 I make that rather pedantic point so that any reader will know that I am writing it before the outcome is announced of the election in which I am a candidate This is not about what has happened in the past, but rather what we may be able to do about making a possibly better future [And I think I may already have... later about the accountability of senior management and the structure and functions of the Board, I think it would be appropriate for both the General Manager and the Operations Manager to make reports to the Annual Meeting There should be votes on those reports and a vote upon the presentation of accounts In any company with a turnover of $20m (and rising) with which I have been associated, it has... suggest that he/she be at the same level as the Operations Manager, whose primary goal is to make sure that WSM is the best natural food retail business it can be I would suggest that the Co-operative Manager be a part of the new collective executive and report directly to the Board, maybe even sit on the Board, as an executive Director No manager has sustainable relevance unless they have administrative... years There is no reason why we should not be borrowing and adapting those procedures on a coherent basis Let’s not be throwing the baby out with the dirty bathwater At the same time as we make the Operations Manager accountable to the Board, at the same time as we possibly create a relationship between him and a new Co-operative Manager, we must be prepared to give our successful Operations Manager... that is what our Consumer-Owner want, then we should respond to them democratically, and provide them with what they want And along the way, we should probably abandon all pretence of being a co-operative, and set ourselves up formally as a full corporate-style company, with shareholder meetings, reports and votes Personally, I think we want to remain a co-op And I would like to see the Board address... financial, co-operative and retail expertise on the Board, and/ or input from the likes of Co-operative Development Services As much as we all want to design and implement a retail experience that is set apart from the non-sustainable and sometimes abusive process of those stores that do not emphasize the same values that we do, the fact is that the wider food retail industry has learned useful practices... Owner Programs, the open forums, the Marketing Messenger, the WSM Newsletter, the local media (both formal and informal – forums and blogs) and special meetings of residents and customers I would suggest that the marketing department set up a simple blog, on a server such as Blogger.com, to allow ongoing discussion by all stakeholders on all manner of topics I would hope that the Board and WSM might . management manages by managing, not by collective discussion and action. I would say that management has its own imperatives that are not the same as. “Informal Intimacy”: A Business and Co-operative Future For Weaver Street Market Geoffrey Gilson August 2007 Introduction – Policy Governance