Accountability in sociocracy

Sociocracy Discussion
1

The most misunderstood concept in sociocracy and other egalitarian methods is that people confuse lack of power-over with lack of accountability.

Some people say: “if there’s no boss, there won’t be any accountability.” Or they don’t say it, but they act accordingly. Ouch!

But of course, there’s accountability in sociocracy. But we’re often not conditioned to see it.

In organizations, people confuse two things: one is what we’re holding accountable to***.*** That could be a role or a aim/domain or a policy. But the other question is how we hold people accountable - and effectively.

A highly ineffective way, for example, is to make a policy, write it into the policy book and then yell “what you’re doing is against policy” into the void. People who do that are more interested in being right than in holding the other person accountable.

What’s a better way?

Somehow, our minds get a bit twisted when we think about organizations because of all the power-over brainwashing and virtue signaling. So let’s take an example from another area where we can more easily tap into common sense:

Imagine you are in a (healthy) relationship with a significant other. Let’s say that person never does their dishes. Since there is no boss between the two of you, how do you hold the person accountable?

You talk to them. And request a change. And you listen. And maybe you both see the patterns better. Maybe you change your behavior, setting a boundary. Maybe the other person changes their behavior. Accountability lives in relationships. You may decide to change your behavior because you care about our relationship.

There are many effective ways to hold people accountable. Giving feedback, asking for a report, giving a report - on what has been done in the real world instead of words in a policy.
Feedback closes the loop between expectation (policy) to action. So if we want to leave behind a culture where it’s just about being right, and we want real accountability, we have to get comfortable with giving feedback.

1 Like
2

I like the personal example. More detail and examples of working with decent, but not very healthy examples would be valuable. I suspect this will require quite a bit of ( probably anonymised ) personal sharing. I’m glad to see this example.

1 Like
3

Thanks @MarkEDunn
Here are some examples I’ve heard in real life. Is that what you mean?

  • “Hey, I noticed your action items have be carried over for a few weeks now. Is there anything needed, or are they not current or important and we should take them off?”
  • “I haven’t seen your contributions in the document. Did I miss that?”
4

Thanks for this confirmation of what intuitively felt right. And I will keep this mantra: Accountability lives in relationships.
In a sociocratic circle, would you say a good leader/coordinator is one who makes a point of adressing the progress for each operational role, like checking whether each operational role is facing any obstacles in getting the tasks done?
Myself I’ve been reflecting on the principle of “who works together decides together” and found that circles where people discuss things but don’t have tasks are to be avoided.
So the concept of seperating “circle role” from operational role becomes paramount and the latter, the operational role is what ensures the principle of who works together decides together. (Circle roles are leader, facilitator, secretary and delegate whereas operational roles are where the work is done). The two go hand in hand. It’s ok to talk to clarify aims, but over time, operational roles cannot be absent.
Am I beginning to get this right :slight_smile: ?

5

If that is needed, yes. (It could also be that the peole in op roles don’t need it.)

Yessssss
As a sentiment for sure. I’d add the footnote that op roles are just vehicles for clustering work, so it’s helpful but not a necessary way to ensure everyone works. So maybe they just do; and if they don’t, I’d nudge and clarify with roles.

(That’s important to me because I’d want to avoid a system where we say that every task has to be in a role because it would make the system slow and bureaucratic.)

1 Like