Sociocracy

The founders of Sacred Valley Sangha intend to run the organization using sociocratic principles (as well as using an integral approach).  Has anyone here actually experienced sociocracy in an organization or community of any kind?  I'd love to hear about your experiences/evaluation of it in practice.

Based on your own experience and/or what you may have read about it, where would you place it on the spiral of development?  In your opinion how compatible is it with an integral approach? 

spiral out,
Arthur

Re: Sociocracy

Here is the wikipedia article on sociocracy as of 7:21 P.M., April 24, 2008:

Sociocracy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sociocracy is a form of governance using consent-based decision making among equivalent individuals and an organizational structure based on cybernetic principles.

Origin

The word sociocracy is derived from the Latin and Greek words socius (companion) and kratein (to govern). It is English for the word sociocratie, coined in 1851 by Auguste Comte, a French positivist philosopher (who also came up with the word sociology) and later used by the U.S. sociologist Lester Frank Ward in a paper he wrote for the Penn Monthly in 1881 and later still by Dutchman Kees Boeke, who applied the concept to education. It literally means rule by the “socios,” people who have a social relationship with each other - as opposed to democracy: rule by the “demos,” the general mass of people.

Ward later expanded on the concept in his books Dynamic Sociology (1883) and The Psychic Factors of Civilization (1892). Ward, although rarely studied today, was very influential in his time and had a worldwide reputation as a groundbreaking sociologist. He believed that a highly educated public was essential if a country was to be governed effectively, and he foresaw a time when the emotional and partisan nature of present day politics would yield to a much more effective, dispassionate and scientifically-based discussion of issues and problems. Democracy would thus eventually evolve into a more advanced form of government, sociocracy.

20th century

Dutchman Kees Boeke updated and greatly expanded on Ward's ideas in the mid-20th century. Boeke saw sociocracy (in Dutch: Sociocratie) as a form of government or management that presumes equality of individuals and is based on consent. This equality is not expressed with the 'one man one vote' law of democracy, but in the principle that a decision can only be taken if none of those present have an overbearing argumented objection against it.

To apply sociocracy in larger groups a system of delegation is needed in which a group chooses representatives who take the decisions for them on a higher level. Kees Boeke introduced the terms 'naasthoger' and 'naastlager', with the word 'naast', meaning 'next', referring to the fact that a higher level is not superior to a lower level. A 'naasthoger' ('nexthigher') level policymaking organ within the sociocratic organisation is not allowed to impose its policies on 'naastlager' ('nextlower') policymaking circles.

In practice

Gerard Endenburg expanded on Boeke's work in the 1970s in his electrotechnical company. This resulted in a formal organisational method named the Sociocratische KringorganisatieMethode (Sociocratic Circle organisation Method). This method is applied in some companies in the Netherlands and other countries. An example of such an organisation is BOS (Boeddhistische Omroep Stichting - Buddhist Broadcasting Foundation) in the Netherlands.

It is composed of 4 primary practices:

Decision Making by Consent. Decisions are made only when no one involved knows of a significant argument against the decision (no paramount objection); before that point is reached, each reasoned argument is included in the discussion. All decisions must be made by consent, unless the group agrees to use another method.

Circle Organization. The organization’s structure is made up of semiautonomous circles. Each circle has its own goals and the responsibility to execute, measure, and control its own processes. Each circle exists within the context of a higher-level circle. No circle is fully autonomous; the needs of its higher-level circles and lower-level circles must be taken into account.

At the highest level, there is a “Top Circle,” which is similar to a traditional board of directors, except each member represents a different part of the organization's environment: legal/governmental, financial (including investors), cultural, its technical field, workers, and management.

Double-Linking. Circles are connected through a double link: One person is elected by the lower-level circle and one (who has overall accountability for the lower-level circle’s results) is chosen by the higher-level circle. Each belongs to and takes part in the decision making of both circles.

Elections by Consent. Individuals are elected to roles only after open discussion results in a clear choice, with no reasoned objections. First, each person writes his or her name on a ballot, as well as the name of a nominee. The meeting leader reads each nomination, asking members to explain why they chose their candidate. After discussion, people can (and often do) change their nominations. Finally, the chairperson formally proposes the person with the strongest arguments, and everyone then has a chance to present objections. This may continue for a few rounds, and when there are no more objections to a candidate, he or she is selected. If no one is suitable, the circle has to find someone to fill the vacancy.

Decision-making meetings, as practiced in sociocracy, are an extremely efficient means of communication and an excellent way to establish trust. Despite the sound of it, consent is usually in the end more efficient than autocratic decision making. For example, one company reported a reduction of 50% in the number of meetings after it introduced sociocracy. The highly disciplined process helps the group stay focused and move swiftly through examination of an issue and actual decision making.

See also

• Anarchism
• Consensus democracy
• Consensus decision-making
• Cooperative
• Governance
• Heterarchy
• Polycentric law
• Secession
• Self-governance
• Subsidiarity

External resources

• Endenburg, Gerard (1998). Sociocracy: The organization of decision-making. Eburon. ISBN 90-5166-605-5. 

• Buck, John and Sharon Villines (2007). We the People: Consenting to a Deeper Democracy, A Guide to Sociocratic Principles and Methods. Sociocracy.info Press. ISBN 978-0-9792827-0-6. 

External links

• Sociocratic Center of the Netherlands - Global Website of Sociocratic Centers
• Sociocracy: Principles and Methods of Organization
• Sociocracy: Democracy as it might be by Kees Boeke (1945)
• Robin Good on Sociocracy
• Can a Company Be Run as a Democracy?
• Motivating Workers By Giving Them a Vote
• Lessons from Semco on Structure, Growth and Change “Today's Semco doesn't have a traditional management hierarchy or typical organizational chart, or even a matrix or lattice management structure. The company is effectively made up of autonomous, democratically run units.”
• Sociocratie van Kees Boeke (Dutch)
• Eltink Procesbegeleiding en Sociocratie (Dutch)
• An abridged English version of an essay by Kees Boeke
• Center for Nonviolent Communication & Sociocracy
• GovernanceAlive, LLC.

Re: Sociocracy

Nothing yet, eh?  Over in the 'plex I had the following exchange:

ralphweidner:

Re: Sociocracy

I'm nowhere near an expert in this stuff (although I play one on TV), but it was my understanding that holacracy took quite a fair chunk of the principles of sociocracy and gave them a more integral spin.  So I guess that's essentially in line with what you're saying, Artie. ;-)  (Sorry, just got home from dinner at a friend's house and had a bit too much prosecco… and brandy… and a nice prune liqueur that's popular here in Italy…. :)

Re: Sociocracy

You can get a lot of info at Brian's home page, where the links between holocracy and sociocracy are well delineated.

Re: Sociocracy

Thanks!

I followed the link to Brian Robertson's home page, and found a downloadable 33-page PDF on holocracy (licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 United States license, which is very cool.  They also offer other  material, including a bunch of audio (including an  interview done by Integral Institute's Rollie Stanich - nice).

spirals,
Arthur

Re: Sociocracy

I have some direct and in-direct experience of organisations run on Sociocratic principles.

One is the school i went to, a Steiner school, others are the various camphill communities ive seen, and also the school where my sister works as a Steiner teacher in London. In contrast, the organisation i work for, although majorly influenced by Steiner's philosophies, is run on a top down standard model for organisations, with a principle and line managers etc.

From what i have seen and experienced, it frankly doesnt work, especially for medium to large organisations like schools that play such a vital role in the lives of its pupils.
There seems to be less accountability, definiteley less clarity and candidness in decision making, the opprotunity for power hungry people to take a strong position within the organisation and hold up its' evolving with the times, and in my sister's case, for there to be a crippling inbalance in the amount of energy employees contribute.

The organisation i work for has one or two people who, whilst competant in certain areas, have a lust for control that could, and to some extent does, cause a lot of resentment amongst employees, but the fact that we have a superbly insightful and balanced princliple, who has higher authority, means that these people and their shadows cant cause the same disruption as they do in the communally managed organisations.

I think there are examples of working sociocrities that work, but they tend to be more like co-operatives, with many independant contributers linking up to form an organisation.

Thats as far as ive experienced at least…

I think it could work Integrally, but all, or at least a majority of the employees would have to be at least teal for there to be adequate efficiency and clarity, or there would have to be a core group, a bit like the gaia mods, who hold a bit of clout to knock shadows into their places.

Re: Sociocracy

Great feedback, Melv.  Thanks!

spirals,
Arthur

Re: Sociocracy

your welcome!

On reading what you quoted from wiki, that kind of clearly defined structure with different levels/circles of responsibility would seem to offer a sociocratic setup a better chance of survival and success, and the key points that stand out are the top-down style structure and the semi-autonomous nature of the components/departments/roles that make up the organisation.

Its a fascinating and promising way of doing things, provided the right people are in place.

I would be interested to hear any other's views on this…

Nice one for putting it up Arthur.

Laters

Melv

Re: Sociocracy

From what I understand of the process, it has a problem of scale when applied to larger organizations. The people involved have to be well enough known to each other and responsible to the group. It takes a high level of commitment. The larger the group, the less effective it would be, IMO.

Liz

Re: Sociocracy

I have links with a Zen monastery which run their general meetings by a process of consent. I've not seen it in operation but a lay trainee who was participating said it was pretty impressive. Of course the monastery is not a sociocracy - it is a very hierarchical organization - but it is interesting the combination of structures.

One point it brings up is how genuinely free people are to express their opinion in the kind of tight communities where sociocracy supposedly works best. Whatever opinion the abbot (or other leader) expresses has a kind of weight… Also the clarity of purpose and the context for the process is relevant - in a Zen monastery supposedly everyone participating is doing so in a meditative state and dedicating the outcome to the good of all beings.

James.

Re: Sociocracy

Again, I'm no expert in this stuff, but it seems to me that we need to be careful not to confuse a flat, unorganized mess with sociocracy.

It seems to me that sociocracy is a high Green, low Teal system of governance, so since it appeals to Green, there's a tendency for people to overemphasize the everyone's equal aspect and forget about the structure, since it might seem too hierarchical for Green. Or if there is structure in place, the people may not actually be in the “right” circles for them (and the circles might be poorly defined), so you might get people in higher circles who see themselves as being in a position of greater power, able to impose their will on the lower circles like in a dominator hierarchy (and vice versa).

I don't know this for a fact, but it seems to me that the main innovation in holacracy is a more explicit recognition of the holarchical (or growth-hierarchy) nature of a sociocracy, so that the higher one's altitude, the higher in the circle organization that person can be.

So it seems to me that a sociocracy can work in larger organizations (without everyone, or even a majority, needing to be second tier), but you need to get the right people in the right circles, either by dumb luck or by focused effort, but in the latter case it becomes more like holacracy than sociocracy.

But I'm probably oversimplifying the difference between the two….

Cheers,
Grey

Re: Sociocracy

Yes, the more I read about sociocracy the more I get the feeling that the main evolution that Holacracy provides is an emphasis on holarchical organization. And it is that key transformation that solidly anchors Holacracy in integral territory, instead of straddling Green and integral.

Re: Sociocracy

Good summary Grey.  The whole method of roles an acountabilities in Holacracy is key to the whole thing working, and I still havn't totally nailed it down yet, but I can see how it works in principle.

For those who are interested, Brain Robertson is leading a two day workshop on Holacracy in London on the 14/15 June.  Highly recommended - and they have some great sponsors too ;)


Ewan

Re: Sociocracy

I'd like to apply what Grey is saying to the original context of this thread - the Sacred Valley Sangha. This is a healing and spiritual community that is forming in Peru.

Beyond the website which outlines the objectives and principles of the community I don't know much about the group of people involved. I can imagine, however, that there are fine green principles involved and (being rural Peru) an element of purple consciousness. If that isn't sounding alarm bells I'll sketch out a scenario…

Green idealizes the purple meme and falls into the trap of thinking that it has a perfect meeting of minds with traditional communal consciousness. Purple's “wooliness” may be read as depth or spirituality and the utter failure to communicate will be undetected probably until some kind of crisis arises.

The basic problem is that virtually all kinds of healthy structure are denied - be that amber hierarchy, orange meritocracy or even red “just do it!” drive and flare. As Grey and Pelle are saying the essence of holocracy seems to be the structure.

Arthur, I don't know if any of this applies to the SVS but it is an obvious pitfall to look out for in any kind of cross cultural community. It could be a golden opportunity for some integral analysis.

Best wishes,

James.

Re: Sociocracy

Would you say that this may potentially be a criss-crossing or mismatching of metaphorical meaning?

Even if there is the idea that there is accurate communication and alignment in purpose that in reality there may actually be miscommunication with potentially disasterous results down the road due to misplanning or whatever?

Re: Sociocracy

that sounds like the kinds of sociocracy ive experienced, with a (supposedly) flatland of equality of everyone (in reality a power structure and hierarchy emerges, but because it is implicit and somewhat hidden, it is open to being an imbalanced and unhealthy hierarchy).

and then these situations, as James wrote,  are more than likely: Green idealizes the purple meme and falls into the trap of thinking
that it has a perfect meeting of minds with traditional communal
consciousness. Purple's “wooliness” may be read as depth or
spirituality and the utter failure to communicate will be undetected
probably until some kind of crisis arises.

I dont know if this model is salvageable unless it is completely reworked into the kind of Integral Holarchy that Ewan Pelle and Grey describe, which is i think a completely different way, and i think this seperation is important.
The Integral starting point is so fundamentally and vastly different from Sociocratic models such as the above, that a clear seperation is needed., in some way like the sepration between pre and post rational (pre and post hierarchical?? ;-)
The sociocratic model that has been tried so far, arises somewhere in the murky mix of green and below and tries to do a few big group hugs, and then proceed as normal, rather than an ordered structure that comes out of a perspective that can appreciate both the strengths and dangers, and more importantly, recognise elements and employees that act from these lower shadows. This is only possible with some kind of hierarchical structure, a core group that has an awareness of this.

But the beauty is that such a structure could encourage people who start at the peripheries to grow to a point where they understand the structure and the need for it, and can become more involved with decision making. I was fortunate enough to experince this with a very understanding chef, who could see my green rags trying desperately cling on, deal appropraitely with my green disregard for authority and hierarchy, and by the end my views were so completely transformed that i was able to work from a much higher perspective (and i was a damn sight happier).

I cant wait to firther explore holarchies, in theory and practice, as its a very exiting way forward.

Re: Sociocracy

Profundity - miscommunication is possible anywhere but the projection and idealization involved in this green/purple mix makes the situation that much more complex.

Melv - the power struggle (of a covert kind) rings true to me.
 
I like the Holocracy model you are sketching out; one that reflects the complexity of the whole community. I suppose you are going to have to start at the “lowest” common denominator (holon) and allow the design to build from there. I imagine it would have to be a very fluid kind of design. If, for example, the purple centre of gravity moves to red then the community will demand some very autocratic leadership. Sounds like the most fascinating continuously evolving communal organism. I don't think that any preconceived model is going to fit here.

James.

Re: Sociocracy

yeah the hidden power of boomeritic equality. serious shite.

I'll just point out that the holarcic model is in no way mine, Ewan's post points to the current experts in the field, but its something that really resonates with me, especially given my past experience of dodgy sociocracies and my recent and current work in places that are trying to find a new way forward with it.

Sounds like the most fascinating continuously evolving communal organism.
In its healthy state, i think thats what its aim is.

I don't think that any preconceived model is going to fit here.
I think there is a need for a model and a structure, all be it one that is tailored to each organisation, but preconceived thinking that is stuck is what can and will bring things into a negative state.

Re: Sociocracy

It is like the most commonly-accepted point-of-view is taken as THE reality and truly effective integral dialogue tends to disrupt that point-of-view and appear to cause unnecessary conflict even when such is not the “intention.”  So, the people who know the actual Truth really have no choice but to condescend to the average mindset of the highest qualities of the lowest-common-denominator intelligence and still attempt to “guide” things in the most optimal direction and purpose.  This may “appear” to be dishonest but what other choice is there really?

If the majority CAN'T understand the complexities of the optimal solution what else can you do?

THIS is why we need someone like Barack Obama as President to be able to explain things intelligently while still delivering the “feeling” that everything will be okay.

This is like a weird fact of life.

Re: Sociocracy

This is certainly a difficult question and I pick up on your discomfort, Profundity.

The question of altitude and the dynamics between different levels is vitally important to take into account in an organizational structure. The difficulty is that it seems very harsh and condemning of people; people with infinite possibilities, Buddha natures, immortal souls etc.

Developmental level is not everything. Susanne Cook Greuta has some very interesting material on how people at lower levels who have done a lot of state training (such as meditation) out perform and are seen to be “wiser” than people at higher levels who have not done the training. Genpo Roshi when asked at what level were his Japanese Zen teachers replied - amber to a man!

I think that people at a purple level can function very effectively and wisely when supported by a healthy community. The (purple) community seems to function very much as an organism. The community takes responsibility and is the repository of wisdom. Purple can show much greater psychological robustness than the higher levels. The higher the level the more complex the pathology!

Being at a higher developmental level does not give you all the answers or all the wisdom. All perspectives are by definition partial, however a higher level perspective is more inclusive. Perhaps the work of an integral practitioner would be more a matter of channeling the inevitable inter-level confrontations and letting people govern themselves according to the various structures appropriate to the group and the circumstances. A verse from the Tao de Ching comes to mind:

            When the Master governs, the people
            are hardly aware that he exists.
            Next best is a leader who is loved.
            Next, one who is feared.
            The worst is one who is despised.

            If you don't trust the people,
            you make them untrustworthy.

            The Master doesn't talk, he acts.
            When his work is done,
            the people say, “Amazing:
            we did it, all by ourselves!”

Integral down to the hierarchy of leader types!

James.

Re: Sociocracy

Ah, to long for (want to) be optimally effective while at the same time being minimally recognized.

A definition of realistic angels?  Gods even?

Not sociocracy but perhaps a “step up”?

While sociocracy may have its downsides, might it serve as a way to “identify” issues for the gods/angels/masters to prioritize and perhaps look into fixing or otherwise covertly dealing with important issues?

Re: Sociocracy

Yer, I guess we have strayed away from Sociocracy somewhat!

Sociocracy is a technology - maps and tools. It is all good stuff but not to be confused with the territory. The system will always be imperfect but it is still valuable.

I suppose beyond that you do what seems right.

James.

PS Can sociocracy work in multi-level, multi-cultural contexts?