Some of our most venerable institutions started out as collectives. Before they were Push Pin Studios, they were a network of freelancers in a shared studio space. Before they were Pentagram, they were a partnership of three. In its twenty years, the French studio Grapus grew to encompass three collectives under the same roof.

Collectives, also known as “co-operatives,” “cooperatives” or “co-ops” are groups of individuals who join together to undertake an activity for their mutual benefit. Co-ops may be for-profit or not-for-profit, unionized or not, and legally incorporated or not—what’s different about a co-op is that it’s owned and operated by its members.

You may be familiar with a neighborhood food co-op or credit union. These are consumer co-ops which pool resources to offer discounted services to their members.

Graphic design collectives are “producer co-ops,” owned and operated by their employees. This is quite different from a firm with an employee stock ownership program. Co-op workers share in decision making and responsibility, as well as profits and losses.

Why form a cooperative? One argument is that organizations owned by the communities they serve are more accountable, and can emphasize service over profit. When employees govern their own workplace, they can design a happier, stable and more equitable work environment.

But there’s also the value of organizing according to one’s ideals. Though we are supposedly living in a democracy, most of us spend our days working for private tyrannies. Living and participating in a democracy should consist of more than just voting once a year. We should be able to participate in the decisions that affect our lives.

One member of a cooking collective sums it up: “We’ve tried not only to feed people well, but also to treat people well. Over the last 30 years our company has come to represent something bigger than we ever anticipated, and something better than the usual business.”

Calling all co-ops
Co-ops have existed for centuries—and seem to be experiencing a resurgence today.

Co-ops flourish around the world: agricultural co-ops in Africa, Israeli kibbutzim, factories in Argentina, construction firms in France...even the London Symphony Orchestra and Philharmonic are run as cooperatives.

Communal living collectives are as old as human society itself. Economic cooperatives in Europe go back to the seventeenth century, when Quakers established consensus-based intentional communities. (Our own Milton Glaser grew up in a living cooperative in the Bronx, though a little later.)

The oldest continuing consumer co-op in the U.S. was started in 1752 by one Benjamin Franklin. He helped found the Philadelphia Contributionship for the Insurance of Houses from Loss by Fire, for member households “to be and continue to be Contributors unto and equal Sharers in the losses as well as the gains.” That is, households and businesses subscribing to the program pooled their resources to pay for fire damage affecting the members (and to reward volunteer firefighters for speedy work).

Industrial cooperatives have been around since the industrial revolution itself. The longest running co-ops in the U.K. and in Italy are well over a century old. Since 1956, the Mondragon Cooperative Corporation has grown to become one of the twelve largest companies in Spain.

The 1970s saw an explosion of cooperatives in the United States as youth involved in countercultural movements sought alternative organizations and organizational structures. In just over a decade, they formed more than 1,000 producer cooperatives, at least 1,300 alternative schools, between 5,000 and 10,000 food co-ops, and several thousand rural and urban communes.

The Moosewood Collective was one of those groups that came together in the ’70s. Since its founding in Ithaca, New York, the group has expanded from owning and operating a small natural foods restaurant to become a larger, more diversified company. In addition to running a busy restaurant and authoring ten celebrated cookbooks, the group now produces a line of organic food products for retail stores. The Moosewood Restaurant was named one of the thirteen most influential restaurants of the twentieth century by Bon Appetit magazine.

The late ’90s saw another surge of interest in co-ops. Inspired in part by the autonomous councils of the Zapatistas, within five years the Independent Media Center movement has grown to become a global network of nearly 200 local collectives in 36 countries.

Further evidence of their popularity—co-ops even have their own Internet domain name. Co-op Web sites can use .coop instead of .com or .org (as in, www.eggplant.coop).

Decisions, decisions
One challenge for any organization with many owners is the decision-making process. When major organizational decisions require consideration by all the employee-owners, this process can take time.

Some consumer co-ops, such as rural electric cooperatives, are run day-to-day by a professional staff in a familiar hierarchical structure. These operations are governed by boards elected by co-op members to make decisions on their behalf.

In many producer cooperatives, however, the workers are their own board members and set the direction of the organization together.

These co-ops often use the “consensus process” to reach decisions. This is a form of decision making that emphasizes participation, inclusion and the creative interplay of ideas through discussion and the resolution of differences.

This sounds burdensome, but many of us use consensus in our daily lives and relationships. When we listen to each other and collaborate to make satisfying decisions for all, we have reached consensus.

Consensus is about coming to harmony. The goal is to achieve a decision that is the best for the whole group, not just a majority or powerful elite. The process empowers individuals who might otherwise be overridden in a majority vote.

Decisions are adopted by unanimous agreement—though larger groups may use a “modified consensus” which takes more than one person to block a decision.

A recurring criticism of the process is that it is less efficient—meetings and discussions may take longer than voting or executive decree. This is particularly challenging under a designer’s impending deadlines. However, defenders of consensus point to its goals: Is this goal to make a quick decision? Or one that everyone has a voice in and agrees with?

And yet, while the consensus process may be slow or difficult, it may also result in better decisions. The resolution of differences may lead to unexpected and creative solutions. And, because they are more circumspect, consensus decisions may be longer lasting.

For more about the consensus process, read On Conflict and Consensus: A Handbook on Formal Consensus Decisionmaking at www.consensus.net.