No matter where in the political spectrum people find themselves, nearly everyone recognizes that we are living in a time of collapsing societal systems with need to transition to systems that are more sustainable and in alignment with advanced knowledge and technology. Failing infrastructures that no longer are equitable nor satisfy the needs of millions, such as utilities, healthcare, education, agriculture and food supply, energy, or transportation, will need to be rebuilt. Already, thousands of people are gathering together in non-profit groups and organizations to discuss how to restore our world in a more positive way. How those groups are self-governed will make an enormous impact on the outcome of those efforts.
In many ways, democracy has proven itself to be inadequate for equity and preventing perpetual control of power, wealth, corruption, greed and decision making by a few elites. Voting by an unengaged populace who may not fully comprehend the issues and majority rule often ends up polarizing and underrepresenting large minorities, leading to choosing inequitable solutions to problems. Special interests that trample and dominate the rights of others create a world of social classes with varying levels of sovereignty. Hierarchal systems with top-down pyramidal decision making allows people in subordinate positions to be over-ruled, unlike sociocracy.
There are more modern and effective methods of self-governance already being used around the world by organizations. One of these is sociocracy. Sociocracy is a governance system suited for organizations that want to self-govern based on the values of equity, effectiveness and transparency.. Some people call it Dynamic Governance. There are seven basic principles that shape organizational culture, patterns of engagement and decision making. There also a number of useful tools and tutorials for developing an organization.
Sociocracy was first developed as a model by Gerald Endenburg in the Netherlands in the 1980’s and called the Sociocratic Circle Method. Since then, it has evolved and been developed further by many other people and organizations. It is based on the formation of small groups, called circles, as a set of semi-autonomous systems with a strong commitment to inclusion and egalitarian values for decision making. Peers within a circle group govern on the basis of consent. Sociocracy is used in many sectors around the world, such as non-profits, cooperative workplaces, schools, associations and businesses. Sociocracy 3.0 is a free eBook published and updated at least yearly since 2015.
Definition of Concepts in Sociocracy
Circles: A trusted team of peers in groups of 4 to 8 people who work together with a defined purpose and authority in their domain. There can be a hierarchy of domains or purpose, but no autocratic relationships between people or rules. It is a circular, rather than linear, form of governance.
Links: Connectors between circles that help align circles, inform the information flow and balance circles with each other.
Decisions: Decisions are made by consent and agreements within circles. If a circle member expresses an objection, the proposal may need to be improved to achieve full consent.
Feedback: Sharing of information, transparency and evaluation are necessary to increase information flow and make incremental improvements.
Patterns: A process, practice, or guideline that serves as adaptable templates for responding to specific tasks, challenges, or opportunities. There are 11 categories, including decision making, peer development, building organizations, and organizing work.
Organizational Structure
Sociocracy circles each have a defined aim and description of what the circle does. The circles have full authority within their domain. Circles define their roles, both to rule themselves smoothy and to package their operations into meaningful actions. Each member has one or more roles. There are linking roles to connect circles to other related circles. In double linking, two members from one circle, the delegate and the leader, are full members of a parent circle so information can flow between circles and align their decisions.
Circles make policy decisions by consent. There is consent to a proposal when no member voices an objection. Objecting requires that a circle member has a reason to assume that the circle cannot achieve its aim adequately if the circle approves the proposal. Ideally, resolution of objections improves the proposal before passing it.
Circles elect people by consent into roles such as the circle leader, secretary, facilitator or a self-defined operational role. The intention is that only people serve in offices who have the trust of all the circle members and co-workers. Circle members also decide by consent what topics they put on their agenda and how much time they spend talking about each topic. One tool for meetings is called Rounds, where each person talks once, so all members are heard. Any discussion approach should contribute to mutual listening and understanding.
Basic Principles For Agile Collaboration
Sociocracy 3.0 describes seven foundational group dynamic principles. These principles serve as guidelines for best circle functioning, decision-making and relationships within an organization.
Effectiveness: Devote time only to what brings you closer towards achieving objectives of the circle or overall organization. Consciously think about what and how the circle acts, with the intent to minimize waste and remove deterrents, while allowing the synergy of creativity, resources, and energy. Defining why the organization exists, its objectives and what is needed clarifies what everyone is working towards. Without that clarity, it’s hard for individuals to contextualize how they fit into the bigger picture.
There may be many ways to achieve objectives and aims, so having several options, or backup plans, increases the chances of success for any given project. Ultimately, effectiveness is about achieving the desired result, while efficiency is doing so with the least amount of effort, resources and time. It is possible to be efficient but not have the desired outcome. That can be avoided by watching for unintended consequences and indirect costs, or side effects, of any intervention. It’s also helpful to consider both short-term and long- term goals and set priorities. Deciding on criteria to evaluate effectiveness at the outset of a project is important for learning and continuous improvement over time.
Consent: Raise, seek out and resolve objections to decisions and actions in order to reduce the potential for undesired consequences and to discover ways to improve. Deliberately seeking objections is a way to tap into the collective intelligence of the group and benefit from insights that might otherwise be missed. Examining proposals through the lens of different perspectives strengthens the ability to make good choices and improve things. Do this by asking if there are any opinions or arguments about a better way to achieve the aim of the group. In sociocracy, decision making is decentralized into small groups to resolve objections.
Consent is a fundamental principle of sociocracy compared to other systems of governance. In autocratic systems, decision-making authority relies on an individual or officers. In a system ruled by majority vote, authority relies on the greatest number of people in favor of a decision, in contrast to consent decision-making where the majority cannot outvote the minority. Consensus requires agreement in a system with unanimity of all members. Consent systems require that no one disagrees or that expressed objections with reasoned arguments are resolved. In this way everyone has the opportunity to express their diverse ideas, but no one person can block decisions based solely on opinion, personal preference or rank.
There is a difference between opinion, preference and objections. Objections must be well thought out and presented to reveal the strengths and weaknesses of a proposal. Resolving objections involves weighing the pros and cons of any decision as it relates to the aims of the group and of the organization as a whole. A discussion in this context draws on the diversity of knowledge, experience and expertise within the organization. It can foster stronger relationships. However, it is important to avoid wasting time on arguments based on personal preference or opinion that has not been sufficiently considered or not moving forward if there are no better options. Attempting to arrive at unanimous consensus that accommodates everyone’s personal preference only can reduce effectiveness.
Empiricism: Test all assumptions that you rely on, through experiments and continuous revision. Empiricism is the foundation of scientific method and essential in navigating a complex world. If we draw conclusions without verifying what, how and why something is happening, we can misperceive the cause of a situation that turns out to be merely correlation or coincidence. A hypothesis is a tentative explanation of a relationship between a specific cause and effect. It is a starting point that then needs to be proved or disproved.
In the context of an organization, a group might develop hypotheses about how to accomplish objectives or change a work process. It is helpful to distinguish between established knowledge and assumptions by acknowledging what you don’t know yet, what is only more or less true, and clarifying the objectives. An experiment could be a controlled test to provide validated learning about a proposal’s effectiveness and reliability.
Continuous Improvement: Regularly review the outcomes of what you are doing and then make incremental improvements based on what you have learned, adapting to changes when necessary. Good governance involves continuous evaluation of strategies, policies, processes, guidelines and competencies in the development of products and services. The intended outcomes must be defined in order to evaluate them and the consequences of actions taken. Often making incremental changes in complex systems is the best approach to avoid unknown adverse consequences. But also be open to unintended consequences that turn out to be positive.
Equivalence: Involve people in making and evolving decisions that affect them in order to increase engagement and accountability and make use of diverse intelligence among the group members. Equivalence gives people affected by decisions the opportunity to influence those decisions to some degree. They also gain a deeper understanding about the process. It helps to keep systems open and transparent, thereby reducing the potential for vital information to be overlooked. Depending on their level of involvement, they have the opportunity to shape things and have a greater sense of attachment to the project.
People are more likely to take responsibility for following through on decisions when they are involved in making them. Decisions we develop together will usually be our decisions, whereas decisions taken by others will usually be theirs. People build connection, trust and a sense of community and belonging by being engaged. In order to become and remain effective, organizations must distribute both the work and the power throughout its structure. In large organizations, it can help to delegate responsibility for developing proposals and agreements to a smaller group that have the necessary experience and expertise, who then inform and consult with others during the approval process. With adequate transparency and information sharing, objections can be quickly identified and resolved. Another option is to periodically rotate who takes the lead in decision-making to build trust and accountability as well as build leadership skills within the group.
However, this does not mean that everyone needs to be involved in every decision all the time. Equivalence means that those affected by decisions have the opportunity to influence those decisions by raising thoughtful objections. Equivalence does need to be balanced with effectiveness, enabled through transparency and constrained by consent to function well. Sometimes decision making will be improved by seeking outside expertise or learning more skills.
.
Transparency: Record all information that is valuable for the organization and make it accessible to everyone, unless there is a reason for confidentiality. Transparency helps people to understand what is going on, know what to expect, feel safe and be motivated to work towards organizational aims. It helps people to learn from each other and clears up small problems before they grow into something big.
Transparency is a means to an end that empowers people and improves performance in the organization. But certain information such as people’s personal data and affairs is usually kept confidential. Therefore, some data must be recorded or updated only by designated individuals.
Accountability: Respond when something is needed, do what you agreed to do and take ownership for the course of the organization. When we join an organization, we take on some responsibility for the wellbeing of the whole. When responsibilities or tasks are delegated, both parties remain accountable to some degree by maintaining communication. Everyone being self-accountable and being explicit about what they can and cannot do avoids blaming situations.
The more people involved in a project and able to influence decisions, creates shared accountability. Transparency and access to information about what is going on prevents misunderstandings about who is doing what. Not making assumptions around the scope of authority and responsibilities is also important.
Limitations of Sociocracy
Consent requires working through issues collaboratively. Therefore, there must be a commitment to listening, learning and using group dynamic tools. This might require some “un-learning” on the part of some people accustomed to other systems. Sociocracy also works best in organizations with a certain level of clarity and structure. Most members need to be operationally involved in order to be a part of the decision-making process in an area where they have vested interest, expertise and experience. Knowledge of group dynamics as well as a good understanding of the organization’s aims are important for sociocracy to function smoothly and effectively.
References:
https://www.sociocracyforall.org/sociocracy/
https://patterns.sociocracy30.org/