The employee buyout of Loch Fyne Oysters changed fundamentally the power relationships inside the company: who got to make the decisions in the company (the board rather than the founders) and the accountability
(from now on the directors had to account to all the employee shareholders for their performance, not simply to the two founders). In practice in the early period of any employee buyout this change is not easy to make real, and Loch Fyne Oysters was no exception. At its simplest, two things were vital if democracy was to thrive: the leaders must set out to share their power, and the employees must learn to exercise theirs.

Because Loch Fyne Oysters had only about 110 employees it would theoretically be relatively easy for the employees to supervise the directors. Between them the employees knew in detail not only what went right and what went wrong each month, but also the characters of each of the directors. They were ideally placed to make sure that any problem reached the light of day.

However, the old top-down habits had a huge momentum behind them. There was deep respect for Andy Lane, for what he had done to build the company, and now for giving them the chance to own it themselves. Nobody would find it easy to stop in effect doffing the cap to him; he would face equal difficulty trying not to make the decisions himself. Habit alone, on both sides, would keep him in the position of boss, rather than reflecting the new reality, which was that the leaders of the company were now there by consent of the employee-shareholders, with authority delegated to them so that they could make decisions in the interests of everyone.

The position of chairman was by long custom similarly entrenched. Johnny Noble, like Andy Lane, had been an utterly dominant figure in the company, much loved, much laughed at and with, and not crossed or controlled by anyone. As a result, the picture of a chairman in everyone’s mind was that of a commanding figure. When the new chairman, Bob Craig, stepped into the position, this traditional picture fitted well with his own instincts. His family owned the local bus company; he himself had been a naval commander; he had built up his own accountancy practice; and he had worked with small companies in trouble, where fast and effective decision-making was essential. None of this was preparation for operating in a democratic structure. Moreover, his charm, his age (73 at the time of the buyout in 2003), and his obvious, energetic pride in being associated with the company had earned him the affectionate respect of a wide circle of people, who were inclined therefore to accept what he proposed and listen to his arguments without demur. He was interested in the idea of employee ownership, and made quite strenuous efforts to communicate good information to everyone. Being accountable in any real sense, however, would be more complicated.