Frequently Asked Questions about Sociocracy

The most often asked and most difficult question to answer in Sociocracy is this one;

Who decides if an objection is reasoned or paramount?

The best answer we have seen so far is from Sharon Villines on the Yahoo Sociocracy List - April 6, 2007

The facilitator or the group could only proceed over someone's objection if that person refused to participate in an effort to resolve their objection.

In Sociocracy, objections are required to be "argued and paramount."

There are no blocks or stand asides.

The person decides if the objection is paramount but must participate in figuring out a resolution to their objection. If I object to the conversion of team files to a wiki (for example), I must be able to explain or allow the group or facilitator to help me explain why I object to this. Otherwise the group cannot resolve my objection and I am in effect blocking. In this case the facilitator could go on with the consent process, ignoring my objection.

But neither the facilitator nor the group can decide that my objection is not paramount to me. They can only move on because it is not argued in a way that they can deal with.

The next 3 questions below arose at a workshop in Calgary March 31st, 2007.  Participants were able to experience how a sociocratic meeting runs. 

Is there a difference between a Facilitator in Sociocracy and a functional leader such as a Department Manager or CEO?

• The functional leader is responsible for organizing the work of the group.  This person can also act in the role of Facilitator of the Circle Meeting Process if this decision is reached by the consent of the group members.  Often someone else is selected for this role.

What is the optimum size for a “group”?

• In this instance we are referring to a Circle Meeting group which implies that the Aim of the meeting is to make policy decisions for a defined membership.  Circle Meetings in Sociocracy are not staff meetings.  More than 12 - 15 participants in a circle meeting process can become unwieldy.  However, the affairs of a larger group can be governed by a smaller number of selected representatives.  Such as a Board of directors serving a membership.  When implementing Sociocracy in a large organization it is best to contract with a certified Sociocracy consultant to assist with designing organizational structure.

What is a “Quick Reaction” round? 

• This kind of round is used in the Short Format decision making process developed by John Buck.  This process is used when there is already a well developed proposal that is likely to gain consent easily.  The quick reaction round follows a Clarifying round that makes sure everyone understands the proposal and the issues it addresses.  In the Quick Reaction round circle members offer brief comments and thoughts on the proposal.  Comments can be positive or negative but do not have to be addressed by the Facilitator during this round.  Comments or concerns expressed in this round may or may not cause a change in the wording of the proposal being considered.
• Proposals that are circulated for comment through forums or other means may need little further discussion
• Objections (that may still exist) are dealt with in the Consent round.

Outstanding Questions are accessible from this LINK.

How do you keep someone from sabotaging or stonewalling decision making in a consent-based process?

Does consent require significant trust to work well?

If Sociocracy works so well why haven’t I heard of it before?

This still sounds somewhat like consensus; is it just that the votes are different than the consensus model of for or against?

What are the political implications of Sociocracy?

Is there a difference in how Sociocracy works in for-profit companies and non-profit organizations?

Is there an easy way to convert an existing company to Sociocracy?

What tangible differences would one notice about a Sociocratic organization?

How does Sociocracy motivate people to get involved and attend meetings?

Does Sociocracy help achieve better decisions?

How do elections work in Sociocracy.

Is the point of Sociocracy to make everyone in a group happy?

How difficult is it to learn enough about Sociocracy to begin to implement it?

What is meant by Development being an important value?

Would Sociocracy eliminate the two (or more) party system of government?

How would the sheer numbers of people be included especially in the lower circles?

Sounds like making decisions by consent would be fairly slow; does consent slow down decision making?

Would Sociocracy fit in a corporation that was a meritocracy?

Complete Question and Answer List

Q. How do you keep someone from sabotaging or stonewalling decision making in a consent-based process?

 A. This question comes from our experience with the governance systems we’re used to. Most Sociocratic organizations find that when people’s reasonable concerns are heard they do not need to behave in disruptive and unproductive ways.

It’s not that Sociocracy directly solves problems of sabotage and politics; it just helps an organization "outgrow" the need for such things in the first place, and helps individuals move beyond fear-based reactions. Sabotage and politics just become obsolete no longer useful.

If or when these kinds of behaviors do occur, the consent process not only prevents them from doing harm, but actually helps figure out where there’re coming from and why, so the root issue can be addressed.

Q. Does consent require significant trust to work well?

A. No; in fact, it relies upon trust less than any other decision-making process. Trust is an output of the process, not a required input. In fact, consent is sometimes brought into extremely dysfunctional companies specifically to re-establish and build trust, and several companies in Holland have seen impressive results in this regard.

A. As with the development of any new paradigm it takes time. This model of Governance had it’s beginning in practice in1926 when Kees Boeke, a peace activist, founded a school in the Netherlands as a laboratory for the development of Sociocracy, rejecting majority rule in favor of full inclusiveness. Queen Juliana chose this school for her children after returning from Canada after WWII.

There are now many successful examples of Sociocracy now in Europe. Ternary Software Inc. the first for-profit company to organize Sociocratically in the US has been practicing this model for several years. The Sociocratisch Centrum in Rotterdam serves as the focus of continued development of the method and training of consultants. At present the only way to become certified to facilitate groups in implementing Sociocracy is to attend workshops in Rotterdam. Currently John Buck (johnabuck@comcast.net) is the only Certified Trainer in the US. The translation from Dutch to English of the material on the main web site at www.sociocracy.biz is somewhat stilted and has been difficult for English speaking people to follow.

A new book nearing completion co written by John Buck and Sharon Villines will really help North Americans bend their minds around the concept. It is to be called: "We the People: Writing Our Own Constitutions for More Perfect Businesses and Organizations"

A. No, it’s totally different. This is key to understanding consent. It isn’t about "votes" at all – the idea of a vote doesn’t make sense in the context of consent. There are no votes, and people do not vote. People do say whether they know of a reason why the proposed decision is outside the limits of tolerance of any aspect of the system. This isn’t at all the same as consensus or consensus-with-veto, either in theory or in practice; it just sounds similar at first, especially if you haven’t seen anything like consent before.

A. Operating using this model of governance blurs the line between separate organizations. As more organizations adopt a similar structure, they can easily intertwine into a fractal, chaordic, multi-entity organization. Once this network gets big enough, it has the potential to transcend what we currently think of as government with a new type of world-wide integrative power structure, all without any messy revolutions.

A. Sociocracy is a structure and governance system that integrates the distinction between for-profit and non-profit companies, and between public organizations and private enterprise. With this model, all entities have both social and economic responsibilities, and the process of governance happens everywhere throughout the system by everyone, at the level of scale they operate at and not by a large separate "government" or by separate "management".

Q. Is there an easy way to convert an existing company to Sociocracy?

A. Most companies are already organized in a hierarchal fashion, and getting from there to an initial Sociocratic organization is trivially simple, at least structurally. You simply take the existing hierarchy, the existing organization chart and draw circles around each level. That is, you draw a circle around every manager and those he/she leads. You end up with a series of overlapping circles which is your starting Sociocratic hierarchy. Whether it is the right hierarchy can be determined as the process unfolds. From there you run elections from the bottom up, where the elected individual becomes a member of the next higher circle completing the double link. Now you have a full Sociocratic structure to start from.

Alternatively, you start small, with just a subset of the organization or even a single team, and then grow from there.

The real conversion challenge lies not in a dramatic change to the fundamental organizational structure but in adding the Sociocratic process, and that’s the good news – it means you can add Sociocracy incrementally and learn as you go, while building upon what you already have.

A.  It is common for these three elements to be included in what defines a Sociocratic organization.

Social responsibilities are legally guaranteed to be equally paramount to investor responsibilities. (by constitution or bylaws)

Every worker in the company is legally guaranteed a paramount voice in corporate governance and management at every level of scale throughout the organization.

Self-organization, dynamic steering (agility) and development (training) are built into the legal structure and management processes of the organization.

A.  If people never come to meetings they aren't interested enough to participate and increased "motivation" is not the answer. People come to meetings in general because they are interested in the substance of the meeting. Unless you are trying to sell them something, you won't benefit from "motivation" because you won't be getting their full attention.

None of the principles or values of sociocracy are designed to motivate people to attend meetings. It allows people not to attend meetings when they are not interest or affected by the purpose of the meeting.

It assumes they will come when interested in the aims of the meeting -- when they are directly affected by them.

Contrary to the messages in many business books which are about motivation, sociocracy assumes that people will participate when they are given a voice (consent) and the aims are clear and relevant.

A high value is placed on development, as being integral to the functioning of a circle and that 5% of an organization's resources (time and money) should be spent on development. For participation by people who are not used to being asked their opinion or to even form one, development is crucial. Development is easier if people have prior experience with democracy because they then have a concept of participation in the form of voting.

A.  What sociocracy looks for the is the best decision possible at the moment so the group can move forward. By moving forward the group then gets more information and can modify the decision, improving it through action rather than debate about hypothetical situations. The leading-doing-measuring cycle ensures the continual improvement of decisions and emphasizes that things change. Decisions do not stand for all time -- they stand until new information indicates that they need to change. Thus the emphasis is not on trying to find the absolute best decision before you move forward.

Sociocracy is the only process that seeks excellence because it seeks continuing improvement and decisions based on arguments, not the will of the rulers or the will of the majority. Not only are arguments presented but they are tested and the results measured as objectively as possible based on their objectives (aims). This is an ongoing process focused on defining aims and measuring the results.

A. The nominees make no statements and all nominees are discussed at the same time.

Nominations are handed in writing ("Nancy nominates Elizabeth") to the selection process facilitator who asks the nominators in turn to say why they nominated that person. Each nominator speaks to their nomination in turn. Then the nominators are asked if they would like to change their nominations. Then a round is done on all the nominations.

If a choice is clear the Facilitator will suggest a choice and there is a consent round. Discussion and rounds continue until there is a clear choice. Only then is the person asked if they will serve.

A. Sociocracy is not so much about making decisions and policy that make everyone happy. It is about decisions that everyone can live with the outcome until more information becomes available to make a better decision.

Decision-making is part of the "leading" function and is the beginning of the dynamic process of leading-doing measuring. Once you make a decision, that decision is measured and remade if necessary.

But until you actually get moving on a decision, you are often basing the decision on hypotheticals for which you have no measurements.

Accepting that "you often get more with 'more or less'" means you can move forward and see what happens. If your decision means you are running into a brick wall that no one foresaw, you can remake the decision.

A. Children pick it up very easily. There is a learning curve and ongoing training is needed but if well facilitated any group will catch on quickly.

A. Development refers to all the activities that we call "on the job training". It means that the circle is responsible for the ongoing education of its members. They should be continually studying new methods for improving their work. This includes participating in decision-making, designing clearer aims and better measurement methods, understanding client needs, and forecasting changes in client needs. Etc.

The kinds of things top management or the board does routinely should be done by all members of the organization.

Q. Would Sociocracy eliminate the two (or more) party system of government?

A. Political parties were the reason both Lester Ward and Kees Boeke were against Democracy as it was practiced. Boeke's first essay on sociocracy was titled Democracy as It Might Be. The party system requires people to emphasize difference and division rather than working out mutually beneficial solutions. Majority vote adds to this the ability to actually ignore minorities.

Boeke also addresses this in his essay -- a national form would not have any more levels than the present government.

Neighborhoods would select representatives to the town circle, the town circle to the state circle, the state circle to the national level.

If a circle cannot agree on representatives to the next level, they go unrepresented. This encourages agreement at the same time it gives everyone consent.

A major difference is that in order to participate, people have to get involved. They can't just send in a vote as people do now. They need to be persuaded by the argument. If they don't participate, they have no part in the argument.

The national level (Congress or Parliament) the top circle (President or Prime Minister)

There would be a governance structure that all citizens participated in and another structure of staff. The highway department would have its circle structure as well.

Political affiliations would be gone except in groups that would want to "educate" people to their cause much as the AMA, ARA, ACLU, etc. do today. But if a circle felt a representative was being unduly influenced they could withhold their consent at the next selection process.

Q. How would the sheer numbers of people be included especially in the lower circles? (Answer provided by Sharon Villines, Takoma Cohousing, Washington, DC)

A. The first thing, is for sociocracy to seep into cultures so that many people are familiar with and using it in one or more organizations.

From living in cohousing my experience is that only one person in a household participates actively in community governance. And then most people only participate in the issues that concern them. Not everyone shows up for every discussion -- or party!

So if a circle meeting works with 20-40 people, the neighborhood division may be 200 people. Lots of circles in a city! Also local circles would only be dealing with local issues. The representatives to the town circle would be dealing with wider town issues. The Town reps would deal with State Level issues.

Policy decisions move up and down the circles but "consent" applies to one's domain and how the policies affect one's domain. As a local rep to the town level, I would not have consent over who is selected president but would over who is selected mayor.

This is more interesting than how sociocracy works in business -- although if it works in business more influential people will support it in civic governance

Q. Sounds like making decisions by consent would be fairly slow; does consent slow down decision making? (Answer courtesy of Brian Robertson, CEO Ternary Software.com)

A. Once you get used to it decisions making by consent has the opposite effect. It is usually faster than decision making by any other means, including autocratic decision making! There are 3 reasons for this:

There is an explicit decision-making process which when well facilitated helps a group stay focused and move swiftly through both exploration of an issue and actual decision making.

Healthy autocratic decision making often requires some degree of consensus building, whereas consent nicely dodges that need – everyone can trust the process itself to result in any buy-in needed.

Most importantly it changes the nature of decision-making and process control – the "steering" of an organization or team – from a predict-and-control model to an experiment-and-adapt model. That changes everything.

A Sociocratic organization would be the highest form of a meritocracy. In Sociocratic organizations compensation starts with a guaranteed living wage. This wage is determined by the market for the skills possessed by the worker. In addition, each worker receives both a short term and a long term incentive wage based on the productivity of the individual worker and the worker's circle. These wages may be determined in terms of percentages, etc. and are based on productivity which is also the case with a meritocracy.

In addition to having a compensation structure based on productivity (profit), sociocracy is a structure that is best designed to support a meritocracy. The embedded organic process of leading-doing-measuring at all levels provides the most accurate data on which to measure productivity.

By activating the circle (team), rather than depending on a manager who may have personal biases, there is more awareness of productivity in all the workers. By taking responsibility for their own production, "merit" becomes a value for all workers.

Sociocracy values having an integrated development program in an organization.  5% of a budget of both time and money goes towards development and learning for all workers.  This emphasizes the importance of development for all workers.

A significant difference between Sociocracy and Meritocracy is that in sociocracy, "merit" is the result of collective actions. Everyone is actively involved in the governance of their work (of course not all circles are perfect!), and so are less competitive individually.  Competition among workmates and teams is often counterproductive.  Increased productivity in Sociocracy is a shared phenomenon.

A Meritocracy governs as a democracy making policy decisions by majority vote.

In Sociocracy policy decisions are made by Consent, which can mean that operational decisions, for example, can be made by majority vote, or any other way, if that decision was made by Consent.

A Meritocracy would benefit from the inclusion of Sociocratic Principals and processes as practical tools to achieve goals.  For instance the practice of Double Linking between circles is an effective way to ensure reciprocal communications.

Q. How do Sociocratic organizations handle performance appraisals?