...and on the other side - what is it like to be told what to do without having any say in it?
Is it practical or even possible to make decisions that work for everyone and have the work done on time?
Sociocracy offers some elegant solutions liked by the boss as well as the workers. I see sociocracy as a self-organising governing system allowing any group of people to effectively work towards its aim while maintaining equivalence among all members.
Sociocracy is known in different
parts of world as ‘deeper democracy’, ‘collaborative’ or ‘dynamic governance’.
It vests the power to govern in the
“socios,” that is, in the people who know each other, regularly interact with
one another and have a common aim.
Sociocracy allows us to give and
receive effective leadership while remaining peers.
The primary objective of sociocracy
is creating goodwill. Not because goodwill is something nice to have, but
because it leads people to collaboration and working together effectively.
Goodwill translates into cooperation, productivity and
resilience. By creating goodwill, sociocracy
produces success.
The four principles of sociocracy are
simple, but have dramatic effects and produce exceptionally strong and
productive organizations. Thus I see the model as a win-win-win for investors (or donors), management
and staff.
It can be applied to any kind of organization
- How does sociocracy work?
A sociocratic organisation is built
on four key principles (CCDE) that let everyone, regardless of the structural
level, make policy on an equivalent basis:
Consent. The principle of consent
governs the decision-making process. This means that a policy decision can only
be made if nobody has a reasoned and paramount objection to it.
Circles The organization consists of
semi-autonomous groups of individuals (circles). Each circle has its own aim
and makes its own policy decisions within its domain (area of authority and
responsibility).
Double Link The connection between
two circles consists of a double link - each circle has one representative (or
more) in the other circle.
Elections Persons are elected into
functions exclusively by consent, after open discussion.
- How does
sociocracy differ from democracy, consensus or autocracy?
I do
not see sociocracy as just a different decision making
process. I see it as an application of all the four principles (CCDE). That
means different decision-making process, different structure and a different
election process.
1.
The consent principle differs from
"consensus" and "veto" in a subtle yet essential way:
With consensus,
the participants in decision-making are "for" a decision. In consent decision-making
a "not against"
is required.
With a veto,
arguments are not necessarily given. In consent decision-making, an argument
must always be given, as well as an indication as to whether the objection is
paramount or not.
2.
The structure
of circles connected to each other via a double link creates a full equivalence
of the members across the whole organisation that still allows for effective decision-making
within small autonomous groups of people who know each other well.
3.
The election
process is just a logical extension of the general principle of consent yet it
became a governing principle because the process is both unique and essential
to sociocratic functioning.
Just as the implementation of
sociocracy makes minimal changes to operations and maximum changes to
decision-making, an organization can change its structure simply by overlaying
a policy making “circle structure” over its existing autocratic structure. On
the surface, there may seem to be little difference in day-to-day operations,
at the same time the organization typically quickly blossoms with energy and
creativity.
- Doesn’t the structural
hierarchy mean that people have different powers within an organisation?
The hierarchy in
a sociocratic organisation reflects the nature of work processes, not of a
power structure.
Each circle makes
different decisions on different level of abstraction within different time
frames. Yet, thanks to double links, the decisions of the circles with a higher
level of abstraction cannot be implemented in the circles with a lower level of
abstraction without their overt consent. The equivalence between parts of the
whole is maintained.
- So who organises work in a sociocratic organisation
when everybody has the same power?
Typically, the boss stays put. The managers still make
all operational decisions. They organise day-to-day activities of the
organisation. They make decisions about what is going to be done and when,
within policies agreed by the circle.
People gather for their
respective circle (socio) meetings a few times a year to make policy decisions
that are made with consent of each member of a given circle.
- Is sociocracy a new
concept?
Sociocracy was originally envisioned
in 1945 by Kees Boeke, a Dutch educator and pacifist, as a way to adapt Quaker
egalitarian principles to secular organizations.
Gerard Endenburg, a pupil of Kees
Boeke and a highly trained engineer, developed Boeke’s vision into a body of
well-tested procedures and practical principles using his family’s electrical
installation business as a living laboratory. The company, still highly
successful after 50 years, no longer has a traditional owner. It is the first
ever “free company” that is not owned by anybody but itself and thus it cannot
be sold.
Today, a variety of organizations use
sociocracy in The Netherlands, other European countries, Brazil, and the United
States. They range from building and manufacturing companies, to health care
organizations, to a public school system, and even a Buddhist monastery.
Sociocracy is part of the curriculum
and practice of several Dutch universities and technical colleges.
This video is the 'what' and the 'why' of Sociocracy. It does not tell you 'how' to practice it. It is an introduction so you can see what Sociocracy is, get a bit familiar with the principles and see how it transforms the people who use it.
This video is the 'what' and the 'why' of Sociocracy. It does not tell you 'how' to practice it. It is an introduction so you can see what Sociocracy is, get a bit familiar with the principles and see how it transforms the people who use it.
FAQ
1. Q: Do we have to change all our
meetings once we adopt the model?
A: No! You run your
operational meetings as usual. In your circle, you will only convene a few
times a year to make key decisions sociocratically (consent based).
2. Q: What do we do with the boss?
A: The boss stays put. She
keeps making all the operational decisions as usual.
3. Q: So all the decisions
will be a subject of all member’s consent?
A: No! Only key decisions
will require the consent of all members of a circle (be it a department, board
of trustees, class etc. – ideally between 7 to 15 people)
4. Q: That means a lot of
learning and retraining... lot of time to invest, doesn’t it?
A: Yes, transformation
requires learning (re-conditioning) and that takes time, effort and energy. Thus
you only implement the system bit by bit, in a pace that suits your situation.
I see the transformation like a flight – I can help you with a take off and you
decide where, how high and how far you will fly. For as long as you enjoy your
flight you can keep going. Where you land is up to you.
5. Q: There is no way to make
decisions effectively and get everybody’s blessing at the same time!
A: That is exactly what I
am suggesting. That ‘impossibility’ is achieved by separating the operational
decisions from the key (policy) ones. That means all the daily decisions are
made by the boss within the parameters of the policy created with consent of
all members of a particular circle. That way every single body is included in policymaking
and the job can be done effectively under the boss’s conduction.
6. Q: Are you saying that if
one person does not agree with a particular solution, we can not make a
decision?! That’s insane! There will always be somebody who won’t like a given
proposal!
A: Absolutely! That is why
we do not ask people to agree. We ask them to decide if they are able to ‘live
with’ the given proposal without it compromising their goodwill to function
effectively in the circle. If they believe the proposed solution is going to
prevent us from achieving our given goal we want them to explain us the nature
of objections and say ‘no’ to the proposal until the objections are removed or
another proposal is created. That is where the wisdom of the WHOLE group gets
utilised and each member truly empowered. It looks scary I guess yet it is
exactly where the TRUST, ‘BUY IN’ and GOODWILL to collaborate and care for the
whole group gets born. Powerful shifts happen when this principle is fully
embraced!
