Early in my Medium sojourn, a couple of political readers gave my alternative democracy (the TDG) a little inspection. They suggested that my alternative democracy looks like “sociocracy.” I never heard that term before, so I did my own inspection.
I have been using the Sociocracy for All (SOFA) website as my go-to to learn about sociocracy. I occasionally browse the website; I’m on the mailing list; I have attended online SOFA conferences. No, sociocracy and the TDG are not the same thing. But there are commonalities.
The SOFA website has many offerings of online courses. I always wanted to take some of these courses, but my lifestyle does not like too many “Place X at Time Y” events. In other words, I try to keep my appointments at a minimum, especially if a little fee is involved.
I finally bought three SOFA books. Here is my review.
Book 1: Sociocracy, A Brief Introduction
This book’s writing is brilliant. Brilliant because the author, Ted Rau, has deliberately reduced the language so that most high school graduates can easily understand the basic principles of sociocracy.
I have done some “writing down” before. Such writing uses sentences with simple vocabulary and only one modifying clause. Yet this writing still explains complex things. I find this writing is not easy. Hats off to Ted for doing a great job.
This excerpt easily explains many things in few simple words:
We all know the different decision-making methods:
Autocratic: one person decides
Majority vote: the majority decides
Consensus: everyone agrees
Most groups use a mix of all those decision-making methods in their meetings.
While I find this writing brilliant, that excerpt got my attention for another reason. When I started putting my TDG ideas on paper in 1997, I came to a similar paradigm of decision-making models. I used the terms “power,” “democratic,” and “consultative.” Ted’s writing is much more concise than mine. And yes, I too said all decisions are a combination of the three methods.
My first TDG book did not go far. So I doubt my work influenced this sociocracy manual. And sociocracy has been around a lot longer than my TDG.
It’s more likely that I read about this paradigm somewhere sometime and not even realized I had absorbed this idea. My paradigm seems not as original as I had thought. I think this is another good example that original thoughts do float around, waiting to be picked up by someone else.
But I digressed.
The two most important points of this book are “decisions by consent” and “decision-making circles.”
The sociocratic circles decentralize the decision making to the best people closest to that decision. Makes perfect sense to me.
I was reading this sociocracy series while supervising my son in his short hospital stay. The nursing staff on my son’s ward did a wonderful job. I started wondering about their decision-making responsibility. How many of their day-to-day decisions were already made for them? How much control did they really have in their work? This was a big hospital, with maybe 500 employees and 50 “departments.” How much power, democracy, and consultative was being employed? I don’t know. But I can see that formally employing sociocratic circles would be more difficult in this hospital than a business with 20 employees. Or this hospital may already have some sociocratic principles in place — and not even realize it.
Book 2: Guide for Serving in Circle Roles
Ted Rau identifies four vital roles in each sociocratic circle:
Leader: this person who keeps track whether the decided things actually get done.
Secretary: this person records the minutes and keeps the information circulating.
Delegate: this person meets with other circles. Having the circle communicate with other circles, via the delegates, ensure the circles are harmonizing their own responsibilities to fit the need of the whole.
I could only imagine the delegates in the hospital circles keeping each other informed to what all the circles were thinking and planning. In this way, the circles could be creating harmonious decisions with each other. Circles using the workings of other circles. This is so organic.
Facilitator: This person ensures the meetings are conducted with sociocratic principles.
I will be discussing this role in the next section.
Each circle should have these four roles. Mr. Rau identifies other possible roles. Each circle will decide for itself.
He also gives a process for the circle to “elect” these roles. A circle member may hold more than one role. But each role comes with a term. At the end of the time, the person in the role is up for election again.
BTW, sociocratic elections are different than our regular elections. Read the books!
Book 3: Facilitating Meetings in Sociocracy
The writing in this sociocracy basics book is more elevated than the other two. Larger vocabulary, more complex sentences. But this topic is also more complex.
The role of the facilitator kind of resembles a trained parliamentarian for a rules-base organization. But compared to a parliamentarian, the facilitator has to employ a lot more “psychology” to be effective. The facilitator ensures the discussion follows the sociocratic principles, steering the circle along the way, allowing the circle members to come to their decision.
This book covers the facilitator’s techniques. SOFA also offers formal training for facilitators. I’ll just say this role would not be easy without such guidance. And it might take several years for a well-meaning sociocracy advocate to get good at this facilitation job.
I should also add that the sociocracy facilitator manual and training would be extremely useful to a workplace or community leader to employ is his/her meetings, even if the organization is not organized around sociocratic principles.
Sociocracy vs. Parliamentary Procedures
Back in my political days, I took some parliamentary training for small groups. At first, all the rules appeared quite ponderous. But as my training and study continued, I was able to see that the rules have good humanistic reasons behind them. In fact, I would say that these reasons are fairly sociocratic, leading to fairness, efficiency, and decisiveness.
Unfortunately, the rules are still ponderous. And rules are often weaponized to better the chances of the power and democratic thinkers to enact their version of how their little world should be.
Sociocracy is better able to accomplish humanistic goals with a lot fewer rules.
My Objections to Sociocracy
My main objection with sociocracy is the principle of consent. Basically, if one member of the circle objects to a proposal, that proposal cannot be carried forward.
I believe a circle should try to understand the objection. Such an understanding can lead to a better decision. Having an experienced facilitator will be useful to getting to the root cause of the objection.
I also believe that too many people are too far into power or democratic thinking that they will use their veto to thwart any consensus they do not like.
So my inclinations are to ensure a sufficient discussion has taken place. Then go with the consensus, even if one or two people have objections. Try the solution out. If it works, great. If not, fix it. Maybe the person who did not give consent was right.
SOFA has a motto about proposals and gaining consent: “Good enough for now. Safe enough to try,” which says a lot about the SOFA philosophy.
Another angle is practicality. Even the more open-minded, consultative managers have their limits on how long a workplace decision should take. It is easier for them digest the information and make the decision than to grant that responsibility to sociocratic circles. It is hard for today’s management people to let go — for both practical and power-accumulation reasons.
Sociocracy in the Real World
Yes, I have some concerns with sociocracy. But after reading these three books, I can envision a time where this thinking can become automatic and routine.
When a circle has a certain challenge to solve, the participants expect sociocratic principles to come into play. Everyone knows how to do the “sociocratic dance” — and that challenge is met and solved, quickly and amicably. Sociocracy is a utopia that we can train ourselves to attain.
After reading these three books, I fully endorse the objectives that sociocracy is trying to teach the world.
We will need an upfront investment in humanistic development. And those organizations who apply sociocracy to their operations are not only helping themselves, but showing the rest of the world how this system can work.
I should add that the SOFA organization seems to be organized with sociocratic circles making many of its decisions. I should get more involved with SOFA just to get this experience, but there’s that Place X at Time Y thing again.
Sociocracy & the TDG
I attended a couple of online SOFA conferences. I got the impression that some speakers were frustrated that they could not employ sociocracy in their organizations to full effect.
If sociocratic advocates want to showcase how well sociocracy works, I have a project for you: my alternative democracy called Tiered Democratic Governance (TDG).
So I invite advocates of sociocracy to work together to build the TDG. They can write their TDG constitutions with sociocratic principles. Such constitutions could become the norm in TDG governance. In this case, sociocracy becomes the primary mechanism within the TDG.
So I say: “Sociocracy advocates, go for the TDG. Show us where you want to take us. Be the example.”
Let’s see what happens.
In the meantime, let me unequivocally state again that sociocracy is a social engineering tool that we should definitely move toward.
These three books satisfied my current need to understand sociocracy. I might want to dive deeper later.
Published on Medium 2024
