“Is This Even a Coop?” A Q&A About Worker Ownership Without the Headaches

From time to time I have pretty long Q&A sessions with Chatty G to learn about various topics. I thought this conversation about legal worker ownership was worth publishing.

The questions in here were my actual pondering. The questions have been reworded by AI and the answers are entirely AI generated. I agree with the answers or find them plausible.

---

Joel:
We’re trying to build a worker-centered business, but I’m starting to wonder if a traditional coop is even the right model—especially for a consulting startup. Can you actually have something that feels like a coop without giving workers legal ownership?

Chatty G:
You absolutely can. There are a few well-tested ways to separate governance from ownership. You can create something that walks, talks, and makes decisions like a coop—even if the equity sits in a trust or foundation. That’s not theoretical; that’s how Patagonia, Bosch, and the John Lewis Partnership work.

---

Joel:
Yeah, but those are huge companies. Can something like that work for a five-person consulting firm?

Chatty G:
That’s actually the perfect time to lay the foundation. What you’re describing is sometimes called “steward ownership” or a “trust-owned business”. In that setup:

• A trust or foundation holds the company shares
• Workers govern the trust (or at least elect people who do)
• Profit is shared, reinvested, or directed according to purpose—not investor returns

You’re still in control of mission, structure, and direction. But you’re not tied up in equity-based power dynamics that don’t scale well when someone wants out or gets weird.

---

Joel:
So a trust owns the company, and then active workers govern the trust?

Chatty G:
That’s the gist. You build in democratic governance without issuing actual equity. The trust’s job is to serve the long-term mission. The people running the company are the stewards. And if you do it right, you can structure it so that new workers gradually earn the right to participate in governance, without turning your cap table into a graveyard.

It’s like a worker coop—but instead of equity, you hand out voice and profit.

---

Joel:
Right now at Cooptimize, we’ve got five members. Two of us are cofounders. We act like everyone has equal rights, but in reality, we could change the operating agreement if we needed to. Is that broken?

Chatty G:
Not at all. That’s a totally valid Phase 1 model. You’ve got intentional democracy backed by structural fail-safes. The important thing is being honest about it—internally and in your agreements. Founder control isn’t a sin; surprise founder coups are.

The key is planning your evolution: when and how does power shift as the org grows? What thresholds or criteria kick off that change? Don’t treat democracy like a switch. It’s a dial.

---

Joel:
That’s actually the hard part. Once you go from 2 to 3 to 5 people, the model starts to shift. But it’s messy. Like, if someone’s toxic or stops pulling their weight, can they be voted out? Or are we stuck with them forever because we all own the thing?

Chatty G:
This is where most startup coops face-plant: they skip the offboarding clause. You need a clear, documented process for removing someone—whether it’s for cause, performance, or pure misalignment. That doesn’t mean you’re hostile to democracy. It means you’re protecting it.

Build in:

• Clear expectations (billable hours, behavior, values)
• A staged warning/mediation process
• A vote threshold for removal
• A defined exit path (valuation, payout terms, etc.)

If you don’t write the rules, the business becomes a hostage situation. Democracy without structure is just vibes and resentment.

---

Joel:
It seems like most coops are transitions from traditional capitalism—like retiring owners selling to employees or nonprofits converting to employee control. That model doesn’t really help if you’re building something new.

Chatty G:
Right—and that’s the problem. The dominant narrative is “survivors of capitalism slowly democratize over time.” But that doesn’t work for startups, especially in fast-moving industries. You’re trying to build something from scratch with limited time, attention, and cash.

What you’re doing is more realistic:

• Start with shared governance intent,
• Build guardrails and flexibility,
• Create a path toward fuller democracy as the org stabilizes.

Think of it as coop-shaped scaffolding. You’re setting up the bones now, but the full structure doesn’t have to be finished day one.

---

Joel:
Honestly, it feels like we’re somewhere in between. We’re not a legal coop, but we’re not a typical startup either. We act democratically, we share profits, and everyone has a voice—but technically, the founders still have final say. Is that good enough?

Chatty G:
It’s more than good enough—it’s how most real-world democratic firms begin. The important part isn’t whether you check every box on some purity checklist. It’s whether you’re building structures that reflect your values and protect the business long-term.

You’re not clinging to control—you’re holding space until the system can carry it.

The mistake would be pretending it’s already a full coop when it’s not. But you’re being honest about the tradeoffs, intentional about the design, and open to evolving. That’s how you avoid both founder-for-life syndrome and governance-by-chaos.

---

Joel:
Yeah, that tracks. I don’t need us to be perfect. I just don’t want to build something that falls apart the minute we hit friction.

Chatty G:
Exactly. If you’ve got a strong foundation, friction won’t break you—it’ll help shape the next version of the model. The goal isn’t to get it all right up front. It’s to build a business that can grow without betraying the people building it.

Turns out, that’s harder than issuing shares—but a lot more interesting.