I, Tomato: Morning Star's Radical Approach to Management
The Morning Star Company, which handles 40 percent of California's processed tomato crop, is the largest tomato processing company in the world. That's impressive, but the most unique thing about Morning Star is that it has no managers. Instead, Morning Star embraces an approach they call "self-management." As Paul Green, Jr. of Morning Star's Self-Management Institute puts it: "Self-management is, at a very very high level, exactly the way you live when you go home from work. We just ask you to keep that hat on when you come to work at Morning Star."
In our everyday lives, we don't have bosses telling us which careers or hobbies to pursue. If we want to purchase a car or a home, we don't have to get permission. Sure, we consult with friends and family before making important decisions, but as long as we're prepared to take responsibility for our choices, we're free to do what we want.
The same spirit reigns at Morning Star. Employees decide how their skill sets can best help Morning Star succeed and then develop their own lists of roles and responsibilities in collaboration with their colleagues. If Morning Star employees want to purchase new equipment, they don't ask managers for permission. Rather, they discuss potential purchases with colleagues who will be affected by the purchase and, if others with expertise support the decision, they simply buy what they need. There is no R&D department at Morning Star. There are, however, strong incentives for every employee to innovate. Workers who successfully innovate don't receive new titles. They earn the respect of their colleagues in addition to financial compensation.
Running a firm without managers seems like a crazy idea to many, but is it? If the most prosperous societies are organized around institutions that promote freedom and responsibility, why shouldn't a similar approach work within a firm? If market-based societies are best able to take advantage of local and dispersed knowledge, then doesn't it make sense to give staffers with the most local knowledge the freedom to make decisions?
More than 50 years ago, Leonard E. Read wrote "I, Pencil," an essay that asks how we can expect central planning to succeed when nobody in the world possess all the knowledge needed to produce even a simple pencil. For more than 40 years, Morning Star has been demonstrating that you don't need managers to run a successful company.
(Full disclosure: Morning Star founder Chris Rufer is a supporter of Reason Foundation, the nonprofit that publishes Reason TV.)
About 6 minutes. Produced by Paul Feine and Alex Manning.
Scroll down for links and downloadable versions.
Subscribe to Reason TV's YouTube channel to get automatic notifications when new material goes live.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
It's wonderful to see Morning Star with such a company culture. It's the same one that used to be present at Hewlett-Packard for decades before the late 90's. And HP had that culture because Bill and Dave took post Depression American values, such as individual initiative and responsibility, and made that the basis for how employees did their work.
Unfortunately, HP's culture mutated into decision making by consensus. And when that bogged things down, it mutated into very rigid top down decision making and micro management. Hopefully, Morning Star can avoid that path.
In order for that to work, you have to have employees who are committed to the product. Once you get bean counters who care only about making money, the whole culture goes to shit. When HP started it was made up by people who had a passion for making equipment. When it got away from that, it went to shit.
I have long wondered why I- as a more market oriented person- have tended to favor more authoritarian governance within businesses, while many of the people I work with want a Nanny State Government, but chaffe when someone asks them to (say) use the same programming language as the rest of the company.
There is one large issue, which is setting incentives so that a person's behavior is aligned with the corporation's best interests.
At my company, people often would go off creating a new product built on totally different technologies. They would get the joy of using something new and trendy, then leave the company or transfer or otherwise toss the product off to someone else, and never have to live with the consequences of a system that needs heavy lifting to maintain. Figuring out a way to maximize freedom and avoid this type of "risk avoidance" is a major task in and of itself.
Be warned that people with strange ideas about languages tend to be attracted to companywide standardization committees. For one thing, it keeps anyone from figuring out that their code is garbage.
My company makes us take an online course in "business writing" (emails, memos, etc.) that is the exact opposite of Morning Star. The fucking course was talking about reprimanding subordinates and the correct way to toady to your boss without being obsequious. I feel like I just stepped out of an episode of Mad Men.
How are you supposed to properly toady?
Be formal, but not too formal, apparently. And get to the damn point. And also be assertive, but not overly so as you would do when upbraiding your secretary for not putting the correct amount of Equal in your coffee.
Don't you mean "administrative assistant"?
Nope, I definitely mean secretary. This web course seemed to be directly transcribed from a 1950's film strip.
Wow.
I may be engaging in a bit of hyperbole, but the whole course struck me as pretty severely out-of-date.
"What I am concerned with is detail. I asked you go get me a packet of Sweet-N-Low. You bring me back Equal. That isn't what I asked for. That isn't what I wanted. That isn't what I needed and that shit isn't going to work around here."
Sounds like communism to me.
I feel like I just stepped out of an episode of Mad Men
I love that show, such nostalgia! The good ol days when women in the workplace where under the desk where they belo...
Urr, I mean, disgusting show! Degrading to women! It should be banned!
And why is hard liquor banned? How else are you going to start your workday?!
Whiskey in my coffee, not vodka and milk, Roger.
Trying to build a successful biz today will get a huge target painted on your back.
Welcome to the new USSA, where sloth and envy are rewarded and hard work and success are ridiculed and punished.
There is no way that we survive this insanity, we are done as a country. Anyones guess as to how it ends, but it's over. Oh, we may survive as a partially split up country or as just another 3rd world rat hole, but the great country that we once were is never coming back.
The Baltics are doing OK after their split with the USSR, so I have hope hat something livable will come out of the ashes. I'd rather live in a free country than a "great" country (whatever that means).
I am all for a split, all joking aside. I'm dead serious. There really is no road to any type of compromise with the progs, that I would be willing to accept.
We are nearly as divided today as we were right before the civil war, just along a lot more lines, it's way more complicated.
Maybe that Russian guy, can't recall his name, was right when he predicted that the US would split into 6 different countries.
I'm with you on the split, but I think three countries would be sufficient: Progressive Utopia, Conservative Utopia, everyone else. A democratic republic is not really a horrible system, but the population has grown beyond the capability of elected representative to effectively represent.
Progressive Utopia will have to build a wall to keep all of their citizens in. And that will be the one thing that I will be willing to assist them with.
Not so sure about 'everyone else', I want to see a Libertarian 'free zone' where we can write up our own constitution based on Libertarian principles. It will probably look a lot like that old document we have now, but with some amendments to specifically declare things that the government 'CANNOT' do.
And conservoland and libertarian land would get most of the oil and gas. Don't think for a moment the progs wouldn't start building armies to try and take that back, especially after they went broke.
Yep, they are going to come after us in their solar powered hummers and shoot nerf missles at us.
Yep, they are going to come after us in their solar powered hummers prius' and shoot nerf missles at us.
FIFY
They are just insane. What is most scary is how they are always picking out an enemy. During the election it was "The rich" and now it is gun owners. There is always someone who is the Goldstein. They are getting terrifying.
We can't co-exist with these people, John. I have been saying this for quite a while now, and I will continue to say it.
They are completely insane to the extent of Germany, pre-WW2.
Spend one afternoon over at Politico and you will see it. They are advocating rounding up and imprisoning anyone who even voices their opinion as pro 2nd amendment. And they are serious.
These folks have always been with us and when they get enough power, bad things happen.
These are the same people who got witches burned at the stake and got the Jews executed in mass.
It's like some form of mass hysteria with them. Like you said, today it's gun owners, yesterday the rich, tomorrow, who knows. But they have a sort of hive mentality, always looking for something to hysterically attack.
These are the same people who got witches burned at the stake and got the Jews executed in mass.
I think you're a bit off track here. Both of these things were done by severely hardcore conservative groups, not progressives. Unless you're just putting them together in the insane category, in which case carry on.
The Nazis were not conservatives. They were progressives. They were profoundly anti-capitalist, anti-democracy and anti individual freedom. They also believed in a centrally planned state and economy. There was nothing "conservative" about them.
I guess it depends on your definition of conservatism. I'm thinking more of the nationalistic views which I generally equate with conservatism.
"I'm thinking more of the nationalistic views which I generally equate with conservatism."
You need to work on that.
They were definitely nationalistic. But anyone, left or right can be a nationalist.
Is Chavez a conservative? He's pretty nationalistic.
I am saying that they are of the same sort of hysterical hive mentality.
These are not tolerant people. They tolerate only what they agree with and want the government to ban everything that they don't like.
You don't seriously suggest that the government round up folks who have a different opinion than you, unless you are nuts.
These are not tolerant people. They tolerate only what they agree with and want the government to ban everything that they don't like.
Agree completely with this.
Nazism and communism both believed in the concept of collective guilt. For the Nazis, it was those who were members of the inferior races. For the communists, it was those who were members of the suspect political and socioeconomic classes who were responsible for the world's ills. And that, when you think about it, is nothing but the 20th century version of burning witches.
Exactly this that I am referring to, John.
They are the type of people who will jump onto whatever type of mass hysteria band wagon there is that is looking for a boogey man to slay so that they can feel superior.
The progressives today definitely would have been inquisitors, witch burners, bolsheviks, whatever, same folks, just a different form for the age that is of hand.
"The Nazis were not conservatives. They were progressives. They were profoundly anti-capitalist, anti-democracy and anti individual freedom" - john
conservatives are pro-capitalist, pro-democracy, and pro individual freedom? this is news to me.
also hyperion, your pretty hysterical yourself my friend.
Complete myth that the Nazis were conservative.
I had the pleasure of being selected as a member of the team that restructured American Express Financial Advisers (a business unit of AmEx) into what became Ameriprise Financial. It was very similar to this. Very collaborative and nonpolitical.
This is probably because there is a high overlap between Ameriprise's financial advisors and Ameriprise's financial outlook. Both basically make a living out of pushing financial products on their customers. Financial Analysts are basically Salespeople, and such positions are notoriously easy to align with the company.
Man, shit is slow this afternoon. Where are the PM links?
They've been othering us all week, probably because of some "holiday" or something.
More of this. Executive-driven, Mad Men-style management too often does little but churn out toadies and incompetent managers that suck up resources while contributing little, while those that are actually vital are often directly punished (see: The Dilbert Principle).
Whoa, I never thought about it that way before dude.
http://www.Privacy-OT.tk
I actually worked for this company in the 2011 season, entry level job was 11/hour and min 40 hour workweek, which was quite nice.
I think my favorite part was the short interview, because im not very good at them. For morning star it was basically hey you have a clean driving record welcome aboard.
so i dont have much other legitimate work experience to compare, but i dont know how accurate it is to say that there are no managers. again i was entry level and i never actually reported to anyone, just showed up and did the job they assigned me at the beginning(shuttle driver). however a guy i worked with had to request from our "colleague" to be transferred to a new job, and when he finally got that job and didnt show up, our "colleague" fired him. sounds like managerial work to me even if that wasnt the job title.
my friend who worked at the other morning star factory a few miles down the road also had a guy constantly on his ass to do his job, and he would bring stacks of job applications around and say look, work harder or one of these will. im not saying any of this is wrong, just that it sounds like a manager to me. maybe its different in the upper levels of the company.
all that being said, it was a pretty cool job and i liked the company. learned some interesting things about food processing and industry.
yeah i was wondering who does hiring and firing if nobody's in charge...
Merry Christmas,NBA ,NFL 2012
There are too many question arising about this kind of business. I believe it is possible to maintain such an hierarchical order in a company that focuses on something "simpler" as a production of tomatoes. The goal of everyone is to produce more and faster, so they are working towards this end without being thrown one against each other. But when it comes to more complicated jobs (construction, transportation), it obviously seems very difficult to handle it. But I can be wrong, the problem is that all the articles (or movies) I have seen about it never really explain the way how the company really works. Who is in charge when they make deals with other businesses? Who hires/fires people?
Anyway I?m sending you my best wishes while drinking a delicious Canadian Tomato Wine.
thanks