June 15, 2020 at 8:09 am #8147Mary NirlungayukParticipant
The new decade brought a few challenges , new worldwide trends and trade agreement and federal funding cuts resulted to loss.
Financial challenges and ageing population resulted payout, etc. The members converted their share to “B” overtime the place looked more like corporate rather than Member owned. Management acquired few more business and asset with the new found money and convince the members that they would be eaten up by the global companies.
With the challenges i believe the Members Owners were let to believe they were heading to the right direction and perhaps they could of given more materials and this could of been unavoidable
Its so sad how SWP ended like other Co-op such as Co-op Atlantic1+
June 24, 2020 at 12:20 pm #8276Tina NgoParticipant
I agree with you on this. There are so many uncertainties in our time. Never before, do we need our co-op system to be strong and do not lose sight on why we exist. The competitive nature of the business sometimes drive a co-op into operating like a corporate entity, as opposed to the fact that we exist to serve our members and fill a gap that corporate neglects or doing a poor job at.
If we loose our member trust and we do not work together as one, the reason why we exist goes away. Trust is an important part of any business, once this is gone, it is very difficult to earn it back.
Being transparent and frank with the members, no mater it’s good or bad, are keys to developing that trusting relationship. I see this is not a normal practice in many companies. Often time, the staff and members have no idea what’s going on. Expecting blind loyalty from members and staff will only go so far and not sustainable. Govern behind a close door is a recipe for disaster.
- This reply was modified 12 months ago by Tina Ngo.
June 30, 2020 at 10:23 pm #8311Cheryl WallaceParticipant
I think one of the most significant causes of the failure was too much control by management and lack of expertise to ask the tough questions by the board. The board could have brought in outside experts and also had some requirements for certain education for all or key members of the board. Likely they felt intimidated by the CEO and assumed they made a good hiring decision so could trust him.
The membership likely saw the challenges and lack of communication so also lost trust in the organization so they didn’t want to support the SWP with their business. SWP was acting like the competitors so the members saw no difference in where they sold their product as long as they got the best deal for themselves.
Some of the governance changes that could have been put in place could have been more reporting to the board on specific things. Better policy and procedures on certain levels of contracts that needed to be approved by the board instead of just signed off by the CEO without board approval. certain committee structures could have helped with better oversight of those types of contracts.
It is difficult to say if the SWP could have been successful with all the changes in that industry and industries affecting it.0
July 5, 2020 at 5:05 am #8319Louis-H. CampagnaParticipant
I agree the SWP may have encountered perfect storm conditions.0
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.