I notice in the Advocates meetings sometimes the problems that arise seem to be as a result of practicing Sociocracy in a kind of relaxed, laid-back way. I can see the attraction of relaxing the guidelines of any practice. It can seem kinder than “being controlling” or “being domineering.” One of my community’s recent Explorers noted that there’s a certain aspect of autocracy in Sociocracy, and after some thought I have to agree. If you have a group that tends toward popcorning and cross-talk, doing rounds can feel like an imposition. It may even feel controlling – and that’s actually what I like about Sociocratic meetings. They’re controlled! We know who’s coming, and the people there know the business of the group very well, because we have a well-defined Circle, with members selected according to our selection criteria. We know what the agenda is because we agree to it – nobody can just add something to it without the consent of the Circle – whose members know our priorities. And I don’t dread meetings, because I enjoy listening to the good ideas of my colleagues – to whom I can listen in a relaxed, open-hearted way because I know I’ll get my turn to speak because the Facilitator will make sure we’re doing rounds. There’s an ironic aspect to the “rigidity” of the structure – firm structure allows us to lean on it, rely on it, and relax. I’m guessing in most communities --especially those to whom Sociocracy is newish (we’ve been using it for three years, so we’re newish) there are some circles who are a little looser than others in their practice of Sociocracy. That’s true for my own community, and I tend to participate in Circles that practice Sociocracy in a tighter way. My range of tolerance for popcorning, cross-talk, domineering talkers and quiet mice, and meeting with a loose agenda and loose times has decreased since I’ve been practicing Sociocracy.
Rules make a game playable. If the rules are unfair, or not clear or people ignore them, then the game isn’t much fun. That is why the game of meetings is traditionally not much fun. If the game itself is not so much fun, you can change the rules and see if you can make it more fun. That’s what sociocracy tries to do. A well-run sociocratic meeting should add energy, not drain it.
One of the most important aspects of “playing by the rules” in sociocratic governance is that it builds trust; it transparently reveals all the important information needed to make decisions. When sociocracy is “nearly adhered to”, it is impossible to assess where the pitfalls will develop. Being almost sociocratic allows stronger-minded players to take the forefront, which is the antithesis of sociocratic governance. Trust dissipates, decisions become suspect, agendas are hidden, and the whole thing threatens to fall apart. I profoundly believe that sociocracy is most effectively practiced in its whole form.
I can relate to this Pati. For me, sociocratic process creates a reliable frame so we can do our work. There is a shared understanding, an agreement between members, about how we proceed and that clarity of process allows us to focus on content. There may be concerns that this structure discourages creativity but I have found creative ideas flourish within frameworks, and sociocracy’s use of rounds helps ensure that everyone in the meeting is heard. That means more ideas, more cross pollinating, and it leads to possibilities we wouldn’t find on our own.
Focus asks for discipline. Rounds help us focus on the topic and sustain the principle of equivalence as long as we want every voice to count.
Speaking in rounds is a pattern to become effective and efficient in a meeting.
Where I think there is room to improve the sociocracy practice is in preparing the meeting, not only by having a clear agenda, but also through asking for more inputs from outside the circle.
As I have seen quite often is people who think they already know enough. Well, the people working on a circle has the authority to take decisions on their domain, but for sure do not know all the useful information related to their domain.
Gathering input from outside in preparing a meeting helps a circle to have choices and so to optimize their decisions to the point of becoming “good enough for now and safe enough to try.”
I think to be “clear enough” is also of huge importance when we have to make decisions by consent.
I guess input from outside of the circle’s environment and splitting the decision process through more meetings will improve the decisions.
I am an optimization counselor (consultant). Trying, evaluating and optimizing need observation, reflection and as much input as possible.
Maybe these quotes from MVOS could bring more clarity and understanding:
Quote (MVOS):
Decisions by few, input from many: while we want to hear as much information as possible, this does not mean decisions have to be made in large groups. On the contrary: we can gather more feedback if we separate input and decision making.
Quote (MVOS):
Like any living system, we work with reality, and the principle of empiricism ensures we tie our interpretations to actual observations and not wishful thinking or expectations.
Quote (MVOS):
Seek the win-win: Every situation will be approached assuming that there is a solution that is mutually beneficial. Scarcity thinking (“when you get what you want, it means I get less”) is not accurate. There are countless examples of how synergy can make an exchange mutually beneficial.
Quote (MVOS):
Open to emergence: Acceptance of not knowing and letting go of an attachment to an outcome. The less ego is involved, the easier it is for a solution to present itself. In complex systems, we cannot predict what will happen. No one person will have access to the absolute truth or the perfect idea. Considering everyone’s input is key.
Quote (MVOS):
What kind of world do we want to live in? The way we answer this question is: We want to live in a world where people support each other, consider each other and help each other meet needs. A collaborative world.
Your friend,
because I care
I so appreciate the thoughtful attention you are adding to our online forum, Adrian. The more readers encounter meaningful support here, the more often they will check in—that’s how our community grows!
I have never heard of the role “optimization counselor”—I love it! Refining, polishing, nourishing and shaping choices towards excellence…one small “true move”–to borrow and somewhat redirect a phrase from Social Presencing Theater–at a time.