Win a copy of The School Garden Curriculum this week in the Kids forum!
  • Post Reply Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic
permaculture forums growies critters building homesteading energy monies kitchen purity ungarbage community wilderness fiber arts art permaculture artisans regional education experiences global resources the cider press projects digital market permies.com private forums all forums
this forum made possible by our volunteer staff, including ...
master stewards:
  • Nicole Alderman
  • r ranson
  • paul wheaton
  • Anne Miller
  • Mike Jay
stewards:
  • Jocelyn Campbell
  • Burra Maluca
  • Devaka Cooray
garden masters:
  • Dave Burton
  • James Freyr
  • Mike Barkley
gardeners:
  • Joylynn Hardesty
  • Greg Martin
  • Pearl Sutton

Anyone have any experience with sociocracy?  RSS feed

 
Posts: 35
Location: Vancouver, BC
  • Likes 1
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
New intentional community (5 adults) looking for a model to follow that works better than the sloppy consensus we've been using. Anyone have experience with sociocracy? Or (long shot, maybe!) The Way of the Council?
 
Posts: 6797
Location: Arkansas Ozarks zone 7 alluvial,black,deep loam/clay with few rocks, wonderful creek bottom!
862
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
good question...sorry I don't have an answer, just bumping up the thread
 
Posts: 155
Location: Sierras
  • Likes 3
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Consensus processes are under scrutiny by many communities. From my experience at a few ecoVillages, seems that consensus minus 3 or 4 seems to work for some people. I think Diana Christian has some great articles on the subject.
http://www.ic.org/busting-the-myth-that-consensus-with-unanimity-is-good-for-communities/
 
Posts: 2413
46
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Hi Fred,

Have you looked into or contact a "Quaker Faith Group" this is a foundational element of there belief system...it works relatively well if I am understanding what you are asking...
 
Posts: 205
Location: Midcoast Maine (zone 5b)
  • Likes 2
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

I like 'consensus once everyone is unable to continue honest arguing'. One person who feels very passionately about vetoing something should be able to do so. Just shy of the level of, 'if you do this, I am leaving'. 3 people who are opposed but not willing to exert more effort should not be able to do so. Note, this is reliant to some extent on people arguing for their opinions commensurate with their true feelings, which hasn't been a problem (that I have noticed) with the groups I have run. It might be a problem if you have some shy people and some assertive people, and you may need to have everyone agree that some arguers get weighted on that basis (this is normally something I do in my head).

The next suggestion I would make is, differentiate between, 'I don't want this to happen in my community', and 'I don't want to have to do this'. The former is a reason not to do it. The latter merely an indication that the work needs to come from the proponents. Someone claiming just 'I don't want to have to do this' no longer gets a veto, and should abstain from the discussion.

Thirdly, for a project, it is not enough for everyone to want it to happen. It needs to have a champion, someone willing to see it done. Many great projects died in committee due to this rule, better that than they eroded the community in lackadaisical effort and failure.
 
Posts: 30
Location: Pacific Northwest
5
forest garden fungi solar
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I've been studying governance for a number of years now. I really like Dynamic Governance (aka Sociocracy), as it gives a group a way to move forward without unanimity, but with respecting dissension. Unlike consensus, it is based on consent (no objection), rather than agreement. Unlike consensus, it is dynamic, rather than static. Unlike consensus, it asks dissenters to take responsibility for their objections.

It requires that a group have a clear vision of why the members of the group have chosen to associate and create something together, against which all agreements to act (decisions) can be measured. In dynamic governance, “decisions” are made for the present moment. They may deal with predicted future circumstances, they may be about long-term plans, but are subject to change and evolution, whenever new information arises. Instead of making big “decisions”, there is an ongoing process of generally smaller choices about how to proceed in the present moment - how to take the next few steps. These choices become part of a much larger process of evolution and flow. The process of dynamic governance creates a “flow state.” So dynamic steering involves a constant, ongoing process of adjustments and choices – that is happening all the time - not something that just happens occasionally when (in static steering), “decisions” are made. Even long term plans are subject to constant revision, as new reality reveals itself.

In this way, I find it very harmonic with the basic permaculture principle of making changes and then letting nature demonstrate its evolution, observing results ("measuring" in Sociocratic terms), using feedback, and adjusting strategies.

In Dynamic Governance, we expect to make adjustments as new information arrives. Because of this there is much less agony about whether we are making the “right” decision. We understand that we are simply choosing to move in a certain direction, knowing that it will very likely change as we gain experience and new insight. There is a lot of room for change. This encourages us to drop our fears about an uncertain future, while still addressing our present moment concerns for what we do know or can reasonably predict – confident that when new information or circumstances arrive that we will be able to adapt with ease. This encourages us to deal with what we can know in the present moment, rather than getting lost in abstractions, interpretations, theory and opinions. This encourages trust and surrender to life.

In methods of dynamic governance, such as Sociocracy, everyone is assured of having input into the process. Everyone’s concerns are reflected in the collective choices made. When new concerns arise, they too will be incorporated into the choices being made. Any dissension that occurs is a natural part of the process, and is seen for the information it provides about what needs are now being called for fulfillment. In fact, the expectations are completely different: people are called to voice their concerns ongoingly, as these provide new information that inform better choices.

This process encourages a certain sense of self as well, one that is more comfortable with living in the present, emerging moment; feeling what arises; and seeing every new moment as an opportunity to contribute and steer towards fulfillment. It is a self that can align to what is, and is more trusting in processes of feedback, adaptation, change and evolution. What was seen in static governance as disruptive is seen in dynamic governance as an opportunity to integrate new information.

Of course, effective governance requires both powerful community structures and personal development. It’s helpful to develop the ability to govern ourselves, personally, in our own lives: to learn how to be more response-able; to examine how we give our power away, and how we can reclaim it; to learn how to communicate effectively; to engage in personal education and development in becoming more powerful people. IMHO, no form of governance will work with people who are not committed to both reality-testing and personal responsibility.

I've attached a design white paper that I created a while ago for an ecovillage project I was involved with, integrating both Dynamic Governance and Compassionate Communication.


Filename: Ecovillage-Dynamic-Governance.pdf
Description: Ecovillage Dynamic Governance
File size: 152 Kbytes
 
steward
Posts: 3046
Location: Moved from south central WI to Portland, OR
561
bee bike chicken food preservation hugelkultur urban
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
My neighbors, the Columbia Ecovillage in Portland, OR, fairly recently changed from a consensus system (which, after about 5 years was leading to gridlock and the loss of good community members) to sociocracy.

I am not a member (they are working on setting up an "associate membership" and although it is taking months, I'm assured that prior to the change it would never happen) but it seems that it is working better.
 
Posts: 56
3
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
i only have experience in large group consensus (~50) with 80% vote without consensus. or small group consensus (~.

Reading what has been posted and skimming wikipedia makes me think sociocracy is merely improvised decision making with the implication the decision is up for tweeking, where consensus or voting is when people already have their minds made up and present their view and don't review. am i correct in this?

i believe there is no perfect way of making decisions. I've noticed that within any system, there are similar problems that come out. I believe democracy exists because there are too many people in a decision to relate to each other, or the people in the decision don't approach it from a loving spirit. If you don't relate enough to the others, you don't know each others' perspectives, and if you don't love them it makes for messy community. even if 10 people are chosen at random from the internet that have the exact opinion on how something should be done, i don't think it's a healthy group to do a common activity if all are only acting out of their own personal wants.

i say if you can work on positive practices, sociocracy will work a lot better. you always have to review a decision and be honest about how you feel after a decision has been acted out. positive communication, knowing how to express yourself, develop listening skills, empathy skills...are key. also understanding that a decision's results after the action is tried is not the most valuable part of making a decision. if a group has amazing results because one person's idea was rammed down everyone's throats, it is not healthy in the long term.
 
Posts: 8
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Johnmark Hatfield wrote:i only have experience in large group consensus (~50) with 80% vote without consensus. or small group consensus (~.

I think what Johnmark said is true in my experience which has been in groups between 20 to 70.

We have discussion, then consensus vote (support, neutral, dislike, and BLOCK) and if there are any blocks we go back to discussion, and then put it to an 80% supermajority vote. It has worked for divisive issues and has also been useful for discussing budgets of several hundred dollars. It is imperative to build a culture of honest and caring communication.

 
pollinator
Posts: 1132
Location: Massachusetts, 6b, urban, nearish coast, 39'x60' minus the house, mostly shady north side, + lead.
58
kids trees urban
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
This is the first description of sociocracy I've read that really seems to make sense and clarify how it's different from other things.  Thanks for posting this!

I'm going to read the whitepaper, that seems like it may help further.


Upgeya Pew wrote:I've been studying governance for a number of years now.  I really like Dynamic Governance (aka Sociocracy), as it gives a group a way to move forward without unanimity, but with respecting dissension.  Unlike consensus, it is based on consent (no objection), rather than agreement.  Unlike consensus, it is dynamic, rather than static.  Unlike consensus, it asks dissenters to take responsibility for their objections.

It requires that a group have a clear vision of why the members of the group have chosen to associate and create something together, against which all agreements to act (decisions) can be measured.  In dynamic governance, “decisions” are made for the present moment.  They may deal with predicted future circumstances, they may be about long-term plans, but are subject to change and evolution, whenever new information arises.  Instead of making big “decisions”, there is an ongoing process of generally smaller choices about how to proceed in the present moment - how to take the next few steps.  These choices become part of a much larger process of evolution and flow.  The process of dynamic governance creates a “flow state.”  So dynamic steering involves a constant, ongoing process of adjustments and choices – that is happening all the time - not something that just happens occasionally when (in static steering), “decisions” are made.  Even long term plans are subject to constant revision, as new reality reveals itself.

In this way, I find it very harmonic with the basic permaculture principle of making changes and then letting nature demonstrate its evolution, observing results ("measuring" in Sociocratic terms), using feedback, and adjusting strategies.

In Dynamic Governance, we expect to make adjustments as new information arrives.  Because of this there is much less agony about whether we are making the “right” decision.  We understand that we are simply choosing to move in a certain direction, knowing that it will very likely change as we gain experience and new insight.  There is a lot of room for change.  This encourages us to drop our fears about an uncertain future, while still addressing our present moment concerns for what we do know or can reasonably predict – confident that when new information or circumstances arrive that we will be able to adapt with ease.  This encourages us to deal with what we can know in the present moment, rather than getting lost in abstractions, interpretations, theory and opinions.  This encourages trust and surrender to life.

In methods of dynamic governance, such as Sociocracy, everyone is assured of having input into the process.  Everyone’s concerns are reflected in the collective choices made.  When new concerns arise, they too will be incorporated into the choices being made.  Any dissension that occurs is a natural part of the process, and is seen for the information it provides about what needs are now being called for fulfillment.  In fact, the expectations are completely different: people are called to voice their concerns ongoingly, as these provide new information that inform better choices.

This process encourages a certain sense of self as well, one that is more comfortable with living in the present, emerging moment; feeling what arises; and seeing every new moment as an opportunity to contribute and steer towards fulfillment.  It is a self that can align to what is, and is more trusting in processes of feedback, adaptation, change and evolution. What was seen in static governance as disruptive is seen in dynamic governance as an opportunity to integrate new information.

Of course, effective governance requires both powerful community structures and personal development.  It’s helpful to develop the ability to govern ourselves, personally, in our own lives: to learn how to be more response-able; to examine how we give our power away, and how we can reclaim it; to learn how to communicate effectively; to engage in personal education and development in becoming more powerful people.  IMHO, no form of governance will work with people who are not committed to both reality-testing and personal responsibility.

I've attached a design white paper that I created a while ago for an ecovillage project I was involved with, integrating both Dynamic Governance and Compassionate Communication.


 
Joshua Myrvaagnes
pollinator
Posts: 1132
Location: Massachusetts, 6b, urban, nearish coast, 39'x60' minus the house, mostly shady north side, + lead.
58
kids trees urban
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I've just read much of the document, but stopped after about 2 pages.



My two cents:

It's too long for my community.  They won't read it.  MOre importantly, it's too abstract for them to understand it.

There needs to be something a little closer to Paul's "Be Nice."  About one page, double-spaced, estimated reading itme of 5 minutes.  That's all we can really expect people ot read.

As eloquent as documents like this are, they are not useful in a lot of cases--only governmance "geeks" will read them in their entirety, and the rest of the community will try to follow, somewhat confused, but not really engaged.  

Can you explain it to a toddler?  Make a simple diagram?  or a comparison to a permaculture landscape that's simple and visual?  Please and thanks.

Maybe I'll try to do that with Formal Consensus--I do ahve a flowchart for that.  ONe page.

SOme of the ideas seem to be taken from FC.

Maybe describing the particular scenarios that people will be familiar with would have them read on and be engaged.  Maybe a skit like ChDiana Leafe Christian's skit (wish I could see that--is it on the internet??)



Joshua Myrvaagnes wrote:This is the first description of sociocracy I've read that really seems to make sense and clarify how it's different from other things.  Thanks for posting this!

I'm going to read the whitepaper, that seems like it may help further.


Upgeya Pew wrote:I've been studying governance for a number of years now.  I really like Dynamic Governance (aka Sociocracy), as it gives a group a way to move forward without unanimity, but with respecting dissension.  Unlike consensus, it is based on consent (no objection), rather than agreement.  Unlike consensus, it is dynamic, rather than static.  Unlike consensus, it asks dissenters to take responsibility for their objections.

It requires that a group have a clear vision of why the members of the group have chosen to associate and create something together, against which all agreements to act (decisions) can be measured.  In dynamic governance, “decisions” are made for the present moment.  They may deal with predicted future circumstances, they may be about long-term plans, but are subject to change and evolution, whenever new information arises.  Instead of making big “decisions”, there is an ongoing process of generally smaller choices about how to proceed in the present moment - how to take the next few steps.  These choices become part of a much larger process of evolution and flow.  The process of dynamic governance creates a “flow state.”  So dynamic steering involves a constant, ongoing process of adjustments and choices – that is happening all the time - not something that just happens occasionally when (in static steering), “decisions” are made.  Even long term plans are subject to constant revision, as new reality reveals itself.

In this way, I find it very harmonic with the basic permaculture principle of making changes and then letting nature demonstrate its evolution, observing results ("measuring" in Sociocratic terms), using feedback, and adjusting strategies.

In Dynamic Governance, we expect to make adjustments as new information arrives.  Because of this there is much less agony about whether we are making the “right” decision.  We understand that we are simply choosing to move in a certain direction, knowing that it will very likely change as we gain experience and new insight.  There is a lot of room for change.  This encourages us to drop our fears about an uncertain future, while still addressing our present moment concerns for what we do know or can reasonably predict – confident that when new information or circumstances arrive that we will be able to adapt with ease.  This encourages us to deal with what we can know in the present moment, rather than getting lost in abstractions, interpretations, theory and opinions.  This encourages trust and surrender to life.

In methods of dynamic governance, such as Sociocracy, everyone is assured of having input into the process.  Everyone’s concerns are reflected in the collective choices made.  When new concerns arise, they too will be incorporated into the choices being made.  Any dissension that occurs is a natural part of the process, and is seen for the information it provides about what needs are now being called for fulfillment.  In fact, the expectations are completely different: people are called to voice their concerns ongoingly, as these provide new information that inform better choices.

This process encourages a certain sense of self as well, one that is more comfortable with living in the present, emerging moment; feeling what arises; and seeing every new moment as an opportunity to contribute and steer towards fulfillment.  It is a self that can align to what is, and is more trusting in processes of feedback, adaptation, change and evolution. What was seen in static governance as disruptive is seen in dynamic governance as an opportunity to integrate new information.

Of course, effective governance requires both powerful community structures and personal development.  It’s helpful to develop the ability to govern ourselves, personally, in our own lives: to learn how to be more response-able; to examine how we give our power away, and how we can reclaim it; to learn how to communicate effectively; to engage in personal education and development in becoming more powerful people.  IMHO, no form of governance will work with people who are not committed to both reality-testing and personal responsibility.

I've attached a design white paper that I created a while ago for an ecovillage project I was involved with, integrating both Dynamic Governance and Compassionate Communication.


 
Posts: 3
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I personally hate consensus method.
Clearly everyone needs to have input but if the group has core goals and each family has their own home you don't need to have everyone vote on everything.  The Board of directors (who can be voted out of office) make the decisions.  Many don't want to be on the board and don't want the extra work that comes with it.   Board of directors or community council has one member from no less than 3 homes.  Once a year everyone votes on community budget and Next years goals.

Those that want more input with out the job title, will need to, join the core council group.
 
I'm THIS CLOSE to ruling the world! Right after reading this tiny ad:
permaculture bootcamp - learn permaculture through a little hard work
https://permies.com/wiki/bootcamp
  • Post Reply Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic
Boost this thread!