Anyone have any experience with sociocracy?

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.

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 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.