Incomplete organizations

Sociocracy Discussion
1

I am thinking about this question presented in Many Voices One Song: does every member of the organization have to be part of a circle? In particular, I’m considering cases where an organization chooses that not every member has to be a part of a circle (an incomplete organization, if you will: not a moral judgment). How do we foster inclusion among those members who are not (currently) circle members?

I think it does make sense for some organizations to choose to not have all their members be circle members. I’m thinking about organizations with a lot of people doing a particular type of work, where if you gathered them all into a circle related to that domain, it would be a fairly large, flat circle (which would likely hinder effectiveness). Here are some examples that come to my mind. Are there interesting examples that you would add?

  • An activist organization with a lot of volunteer canvassers
  • That MVOS section mentions a town (or other municipality). But what is the mission of a town?
  • That MVOS section mentions a “platform co-op”; is this something like a food co-op?
  • A farm with many people working the fields
  • Any organization that gets large enough to have more than a “sociocratic circle size” number of people doing a particular type of work

So, perhaps we can think about the activist organization with, say, a team of 30 canvassers. Maybe we imagine that somehow a canvassing circle is created that intentionally does not include all the canvassers. Perhaps that circle early on decides on a strategy for rotating canvassers into the canvassing circle with some frequency. Maybe they also set up clear channels for ongoing feedback from non-circle-members. And maybe the organization as a whole fosters full group check-in meetings and spaces to facilitate social time and some degree of feedback.

How do you all react to these ideas around incomplete organizations (that is, ones that deliberately choose to have circles that are smaller than the full set of people doing work in the corresponding domain)? What are your ideas and experiences around how to support all of the members in organizations like this?

2

Dear John, there is a strong reason to have all members be part of a circle: accountability. All members are then accountable for their contribution to decisions made, and executed. I sometimes suggest to have larger groups elect around eight members to form the decision making circle on behalf of them, for a fixed period of time and then (re)elect again. I think this can only work in open communities without formal roles and responsibilities/functions and payment. Such as activist organization with a lot of volunteers. But still, be aware of members that complain to the decisions made by the members active in circles, without taking responsibility for improving the decisions. This is a risk for equity, empathy and nurturing relations (regeneratieve community holding).

3

very nice topic!

I like yur suggestions (and also the points raised by @karinvosters ). In addition, I find a point person as a “connector” useful, e.g. the canvasser volunteer contact as a role for a circle member whose roles it is to stay in contact with those who aren’t.

4

Yes, and that person could/should be elected by an open consent election. And never represent a group alone, always with at least two (therefor eight persons for al larger group of say 30+).