How can a member of one circle raise an objection to a decision of a separate circle? For example, let’s consider a craft organization. In this scenario, the membership circle decided to significantly raise the dues for members in order to gather funds for a part-time position. This could be very difficult for a less affluent member, let’s call her Alice who is on the tool’s circle. Let’s say she is in a difficult financial situation, and could not afford the new, higher dues. How could she address this problem?
Alice could talk directly to the people in the membership circle and explain her situation to them. But let’s say they are all affluent people and are unable/unwilling to relate to her situation. Alice could also reach out to the parent circle of the membership circle. In our scenario let’s say this is the general circle. Let’s say the general circle is busy and doesn’t think her issue merits consideration. She could make a proposal in the tools circle, and request that their delegate to the general circle bring up the issue of high dues to the general circle. But let’s say, Alice is the only person with financial issues in the tools circle, and no one else is interested in getting into a big discussion. What else can she do?
I’m struggling with the idea that a member of the organization could be affected by decisions made by other circles without having consent rights on those decisions. What’s a good way of thinking about this problem?
Hey there
Yes it could happen the way you describe it.
And then Alice would be heavily affected.
I like your question,
and the best answers I have is that
it’s rare that one person stands alone unconsidered even after speaking up. MANY more times in these situations I see people make exceptions for individuals.
Sociocracy is an aim realization tool, and the part-time position might be better for the org long term than catering to every person in it. I know that’s hard to swallow, and there’s some truth there as well. Crazy example, let’s say the part-time position is for fundraising so the org can lower prices. Then it could be a good investment.
Sociocracy works best when every circle makes decisions that are good for the whole. That means taking in feedback. If they take in the feedback and come to the conclusion that it’s still better for the whole to go ahead, then maybe there’s truth to it. If they make a “wrong” or inconsiderate decision, it will ultimately catch up with them because any omission in a system will eventually show. Sociocracy can’t prevent those situations but only close the feedback loop (add a term) so (when the review term of the decision is up) the circle notices its mistake and can course-correct.
Thanks for your response. Yes it makes sense that in the majority of the cases that organizations will listen to and make accommodations for the people who speak up.
And I agree that sometimes the best thing for the organization will be bad for an individual at least in the short term. Not every decision is easy. Even in my immediate family we face this problem. As a parent, sometimes I need to make decisions in areas under my domain that go against what my children want.
If I understand it correctly, sociocracy honors the circle’s ability to freely make decisions within its domain. This is key for the organization to remain effective. But it comes at the cost of members not having “consent rights” to every decision the organization makes. Each member will only have those rights for the circles they are a part of.
At the same time, from your third point, the organization will work best if each circle responds to feedback. I am thinking of the organization as an organism. A healthy organism will have healthy parts (functioning organs, tissue, and individual cells). In stressful times the organism may sacrifice optimal functioning of some of its parts for the sake of the whole. For instance, an animal may digest some of its fat or muscle tissue in times of famine. In animals there is a nervous system that provides feedback in the form of pain so it will not unnecessarily damage its parts. I think an organization needs a similar feedback system so that it can balance its member’s needs with the needs of the organization as a whole.
As you mentioned sociocracy has term limits on policies and roles to promote this kind of feedback. Also the double-linking of circles promotes the bi-directional flow of information through the circle hierarchy. But it sounds like the culture of the organization plays a big role in keeping these feedback loops functioning. Tying it back to the original question, an objection is a particularly strong form of feedback. I’m curious if there are any other structural elements of sociocracy for communicating objections through the organization? Could something like this be added if it doesn’t yet exist? Or do you think focusing on the culture of the organization is more important?
Honestly, personally, I’ve shifted a little on that. I’m not sure I share the underlying belief that the ideal would be that everyone have consent rights on everything around them and that it’s a cost not to have that. There’s something to say about our somewhat self-centric views on not wanting individual autonomy constrained in any way. But that’s just our current paradigm that drives that expectation. I can easily see how other cultures or past/future paradigms weigh that differently.
But that’s only a nuance. Of course, generally I agree that people should have agency and a say on the world around them.
Yes, exactly. I agree with that. (And hence my hesitation on the first point. It would never occur to us to say “but my fat cells want xyz and they should have a say on everything, you can’t force them”. Well, we are those cells in organizations.)
And yes, I’m very curious about the information flow infrastructure (like the nervous system) that overlays the decision-making in organizations.
Culture and trust are very much a part of everything, yes. The water in which we swim.
I’m not fully sure why you’re playing culture against information flow (communication of objections in the system). Can you help me understand that? Why do we need to decide which one is more important?
Let me step back, and try to clarify the needs behind my original question. It’s important to me that members of the organization are heard and that they matter to the organization. When someone has an objection, I think it is especially important that they are heard, even if the objection is related to a different circle.
Also I have experience in a somewhat hierarchical organization where there is a chain of command. In this organization, the managers provide support to their direct reports. So if an employee is running into a problem affecting their ability to do their job, they can talk about it with the supervisor, and it is the supervisor’s job to help address the problem. When it works the supervisor can bring the issue up the chain as needed, and the end result is the employee feels supported and heard.
So I think that’s why I am focusing on the structure of the information flow. I’m used to having a person assigned to me who I can go to if I have a problem, or obstacle with my work. This meets my need to be heard. Based on this experience, I have a belief that this reporting relationship, is a good approach to meeting this need. But there could be other ways.
So I’m curious about how a member’s need to be heard is met in a sociocratic organization. Practically who do they go to when they are having trouble? And how is the issue escalated as needed? I think in my original question I set up a worst case scenario, which maybe was a mistake. I’m really just interested in how members can be heard even with problems that cut across multiple circles.
I hope this helps clarify things. Let me know if this is getting off topic, and I could start a new thread. Thanks for taking the time to respond!
I’m curious about this, Ted. When you mention having “consent rights on everything around them”, by “everything around them” do you mean in their circles, or in the whole organization? It seems like David is noting the core sociocratic principle of circle members having power within their circle’s domain, and so I would be surprised if you were shifting on that principle. Would you be willing to clarify the idea that you’re shifting on, and what has prompted the shift for you?
It seems to me that you described the possible channels for feedback in your original post: Alice can directly communicate with the circle holding the domain for the distressing decision. She can also ask her circle or her parent circle to advocate on her behalf through the circle links up through the circle hierarchy. Are those not sufficient for providing platforms for her to be heard? Would you be willing to say a bit more about what you perceive is missing from that framework that does not sufficiently allow a member to be supported and heard?
Thanks for asking, because things are clicking as I try to respond. I think the channels I described in the original question are sufficient for members to be supported and heard. You potentially have more support than in a hierarchical organization because you have the leader and the delegate that can bring your needs to the parent circle instead of just a single supervisor. Of course, there could be situations as I described where a member still has an unmet need to be heard. Sociocracy is not a magic solution, but it does provide a framework that can help an organization and its members to meet their needs.
I think the original question was based on a hope that the double linked circle structure would somehow allow a circle member to object to another circle’s decision and to force discussion. But that would not be good because it would erode the other circle’s domain, and we need clear domains so that decisions can be made in circles. Otherwise the whole organization has to make all the decisions together which is a recipe for paralysis or a few people taking control. I also was concerned about relying on communicating objections through the circles. In the original question, I raised a scenario where the parent circle fails to consider Alice’s objection. While this is bad in the specific case for Alice, the filtering of communication up the circle links is a good thing in general. In my experience, usually there are limited resources, so the filtering helps the organization to focus on resolving the most important issues.
So at this point, I’m thinking that this whole thread is a solid answer to the original question.