Sociocracy
Asheville Movement Collective (AMC)
Dynamic Self-Organizing Governance System

Asheville Movement Collective (AMC) Transition 3
   Collective Self-Governance 3
   Sociocracy 4
      Attributes of this desired system of governance: 4
Four principles of Sociocracy: 5
   1. Circle Organization Structure Breaks up the Work 5
        AMC Circle Leaders Contact Info 6
   2. Consent governs policy decision-making. 7
   3. Double-Link circle network to improve communication 9
   4. People are selected to roles and responsibilities by consent after open discussion. 10
How to run Sociocracy Circle Meetings 11
   Opening Rounds 11
   Administrative Concerns 11
   Content 11
   Closing Round 11
How to run the Consent Process 12
   A. Simple Consent (shortest format) 12
   B. Proposal Consent (medium format) 12
   C. Proposal Consent (long format) 12
       Information Gathering (frame the aim) 12
       Proposal Development (transformation) 12
       Consent (output) 12
       Seeking the best course of action 12
Sociocratic attributes that work: 14
Suggested Next Steps in a Phased Implementation: 14

 

Asheville Movement Collective (AMC) Transition

Collective Self-Governance

From Wikipedia: A collective is a group of people who share or are motivated by at least one common issue or interest, or work together on a specific project(s) to achieve a common objective. Collectives are also characterized by attempts to share and exercise political and social power and to make decisions on either a consent or consensus-driven and egalitarian basis.

Current issues in our rapidly growing collective at the AMC are:

1. Membership size is growing challenging old means of communication.
2. Membership size is growing increasing the amount of work.
   
3. Membership size is growing increasing the need for more formalized controls and wider distribution of power while keeping collective cohesion.
   
4. Challenges at the top are increasing, leading to burn-out, inefficiencies, and more need for cooperation, loyalty, and trust from those they are serving.
   
5. Frustrations at the bottom are increasing, leading to splintering, fractionalism, rebellion, and need for respect, true inclusion, and enfranchisement.

Many of our collective’s (and planet’s) large-scale problems are systemic. This is true especially relating to our decision-making methods regarding resource allocation and work distribution.

A huge source of our trouble in this world is that we unwittingly give up our power to consent in decisions that affect us. I feel people come to our dances frustrated with their role in this, and could be better served by us by mirroring a better alternative.

Sociocracy, also known as Dynamic Self-Governance (DSG) is designed to help us address these problems with the following benefits.

Sociocracy/DSG
Attributes of this desired system of dynamic self-governance:

Inclusive: As many stakeholders as possible should be involved in the decision-making process.
Participatory: The process should actively solicit the input and participation of all decision-makers.
Cooperative: Participants in an effective process should strive to reach the best possible decision for the group and all of its members, rather than opt to pursue a majority opinion, potentially to the detriment of a minority.
Deliberative: Efficient discussion should be encouraged with minority concerns addressed as quickly as possible to produce a higher qualitative proposal consistent with shared values, vision, mission, goals, or objectives.
Egalitarian: All members of a decision-making body should be afforded, as much as possible, equal input into the process. All members have the opportunity to present, amend and challenge proposals.
Solution-oriented: An effective decision-making body strives to emphasize common agreement over differences and reach effective decisions using consent, alignment leading to consensus, compromise and other techniques to avoid or resolve mutually-exclusive positions within the group.
Logical: Objections or other arguments must be information based and backed up with logical references to shared values, vision, mission, goals, or objectives.
Adaptabile: Able to adapt or respond quickly to external and internal stress and accommodate diversity in values.
Efficient: Maximizing individual and collective resource potential using the simplest structure. This encourages participation and cohesion and is more sustainable. Discussions are encouraged to seek a quick prototype resolution that can be easily tested and modified.
Scalable while minimizing the hierarchical levels required to carryout the mission so as to avoid becoming cumbersome as the group grows larger.
Synergistic: Creating new possibilities of potential and power through collaboration.
Cohesive: High level of inter-relatedness, and synergy with common focus of intent.
Integrity: Individual communication and actions consistent with the whole group’s stated intention.
Authentic: Encouraging communication of true feelings and intention. Minimizes manipulation to promote self-interests harmful to the group through inauthentic communication.
Sustainable: mimicking the most successful systems with the highest survival capability. It is ecological, beneficially impacting the rest of the planet as a long-term requirement of sustainability.

A phased-in restructuring that would reflect these attributes would be ideal in addressing the five current issues we are facing that were mentioned in the opening discussion.

The first phase, already implemented, is to break down our work into approximately six or seven work groups or circles, each of which would be charged with carrying out the mission of their work domain. Temporary circles are formed as needed.

The second suggested phase would be to adopt a sociocratic approach of self-governance of these circles. We will phase into that approach gradually as we develop the necessary skills.

Let’s address the first phase first.

Four principles of Sociocracy:

 

1. Circle Organization Structure Breaks up the Work

 

• Circles are the primary governance unit.
  
  
• Circles are semi-autonomous and self-organizing.
  Within their domain, they make policy decisions; set aims; delegate functions to their own members; and maintain their own log (i.e., books, minutes) and program of ongoing development. Logs must be accessible to members of all circles.
  
  
• Hierarchy in Sociocracy reflects different levels of work… not control, representing a true Heterarchy. Higher levels of Heterarchy reflect a broader more inclusive scope of work in the domain of the circle.
  
  
• This principle is implemented first as it is the most familiar.
  It more efficiently matches talent and passion with work.
  
  
• Participants focus on their passion and are more willing to delegate a more appropriate representative to coordinate areas that are of less interest.
  

 

AMC Circle Leaders Contact Info

Music:   Diane Gardner   505-9310   zenobia@mindspring.com
Dance Leadership:   Conway Weary   337-1538   willowwoman@charter.net
Production:   Alison Downey   225-5762   alison_downey@hotmail.com
Communication:   Kimberly Hodges   337-9383 c 232-1139 h   khodges333@charter.net
Special Events/ Alternative/Team Ritual:  Marta Martin   301-4135 c 505-4184 h   dancingmarta@yahoo.com
Administraton/Finance:   Joseph Ransmeier   989-9788 c 298-6505 h   joseph@joeransmeierwoodworking.com
Space search circle:   Lindya   lindya3@yahoo.com

2. Consent governs policy decision-making.

• Consent means there are no argued and paramount objections to a proposed decision.
  
  
• If the objection can’t be resolved the proposal doesn’t go forward
  
  
• Not every decision requires consent
  
  

In reality, all power is given by the governed to the governing through consent. Not all governed perceive this, nor consciously claim their power.
Decisions by consent are made when there are no remaining "paramount objections." Objections must be reasoned and argued and based on the ability of the objector to work productively toward the goals of the organization. Alignment focuses on the objective, and while being unattached to the method of attaining the objective.

 

If you are experiencing something and interpreting it as outside your limits of tolerance or the tolerance of the system, that is a paramount objection.

The meeting facilitator may ask, “Why are you having that feeling? … How can we steer the system so that you do not feel that anymore?” (This asks for Self-correction)

Distinction: Decisions are either policy decisions or operational decisions. Sociocratic policy decisions are always consent-based.
Operational decisions may be a traditional type if everyone consents to this policy.

The consent principle differs from "consensus" and "veto".

Consensus (with Veto) With consensus, all participants in decision-making are "for" a decision. The AMC will strive for this, but it is not mandatory. If a veto is presented, arguments are not necessarily given.

Consent / Alignment   With consent, all participants in decision-making are "not against" a decision. (More efficient) With consent, an argument for an objection must always be given, as well as an indication as to whether the objection is paramount or not (i.e., whether breakdown will occur.)

Efficiency: One of the defining principles behind consent is the idea of “doing more with less.” Rather than spend lots of time crafting a proposal that anticipates every imaginable possibility, consent strives to come up with the fastest and most effective way to achieve a group’s aims.
This means:

• Decisions are made based on everyone’s range of tolerance rather than their preferences.
  
• The decision reached is then implemented for a specific span of time.
  
• Implementation is followed by measuring how well it is working and reviewed after the agreed upon time frame.
  
• The solution is refined as needed based on what is really happening rather than what might have been imagined beforehand.

 

Two conditions make it easier to achieve consent. Every decision is given a term – a length of time it will be tried and, if it doesn’t work as expected, reassessed. During that trial period, the second condition comes into play: the group measures how effectively the strategy is working.
According to cybernetics – the science of steering and control – the idea of navigating and correcting one’s course as you move toward your goal produces the highest quality outcome in the shortest time. It doesn’t matter whether we’re talking about a group trying to find a good solution or a satellite launched into space: repeated corrections are the recommended strategy.

 

All policy decisions are made by consent although the group may by consent decide to use another decision-making method. Within these policies, day-to-day operational decisions are normally made in the traditional fashion.
Besides the four main principles Endenburg has come up with some agreements that help "maintain equivalence" between participating members:

• Everyone has a right to be part of a decision that affects them.
  
• Every decision may be reexamined at any time.
  
• No secrets may be kept.
  
• Everything is open to discussion.

Consent is not successful unless it is used by people who consent to
use it and understand its value and limitations. ---- Sharon Villines

 

3. Double-Link circle network to improve communication

• Circles are connected by a double-link consisting of two or more people.
  
• Each link represents the perspective of the circle that selected him or her. They can be re-called by their sponsoring circle through the consent process.
  
• The functional leader of the lower outer circle is selected by the next higher inner circle.
  
• One or two representatives in the higher inner circle are selected by the lower outer circle that they represent. The higher circle retains the right of consent in accepting new members and may present an argued paramount objection in a rare case when personality dynamics seem not to be workable.
  
• Both the leader and representative participate fully in both circles as peers with valuable different perspectives.

At the highest inner level of the organization, there is a “Core Inner Circle,” similar to a traditional executive board of directors that is concerned with the overall scope of the organization. The top or core inner circle also includes any CEO or officers required by law. Also included are representatives of the lower outer work circles. Each of these circle members participates fully in decision-making as peers.

 

Circle double-linking between work circles on the same peer level (horizontal linking) use selected representatives that may have no leadership role in the non-native circle where they serve as a representative. (i.e., A dance event facilitator leads a team of production room captain, and music collaborator selected by their respective circles.)

 

4. People are selected to roles and responsibilities by consent after open discussion.

• Circles select people for roles and responsibilities in open discussion by consent
  
• The process is highly affirming
  
• Eliminates leadership by someone who is not trusted
  
• No winners or losers

Individuals are selected to roles and responsibilities in open discussion using the same consent criteria used for other policy decisions.

 

Members of the circle nominate themselves or other members of the circle and present reasons for their choice.

 

After discussion, people can (and often do) change their nominations, and the discussion leader will suggest the selection of the person for whom there are the strongest arguments.

 

Circle members may object and there is further discussion.
For a role that many people might fill, this discussion may continue for a few rounds. For others, this process is short when fewer people are qualified for the task.

 

The circle may also decide to choose someone who is not a current member of the circle.

 

The AMC will use a phased transition to a sociocratic model…

1. to provide a more stable transition while maximizing current expertise, and
   
2. to develop required sociocratic skills in its members, and
   
3. to allow for each circle to become clear as to whom they may want to select as representative in the core circle.

 

To that end, circle representatives will be selected by lower outer work circles when…

1. The core inner circle has developed expertise in a stable sociocratic consent process and is ready to accept new members.
   
2. An individual lower outer work circle has developed expertise in a stable sociocratic consent process, and
   
3. An individual lower outer work circle has become clear as to whom they may want to select as their representative(s) in the core inner circle.

 

How to run Sociocracy Circle Meetings

Opening Rounds

Purpose is to establish a social foundation:

1. We are collectively in charge
   
2. We want to develop by working together
   
3. We want to attune to each other
   

Format:

• Share what may be in the way to get present
  
• Share utmost concerns addressing aim of meeting being discussed

Administrative Concerns

• Announcements
  
• Minutes / consent
  
• Acceptance of agenda

Content

• Agenda items follow the consent process

Closing Round

• Include measurement and evaluation of the meeting and its results
  
• Schedule future agenda items
  

A format for a “Round” may be either a

1. “Pop-Corn Round” where the facilitator in turn calls on “raised hands” where participants randomly signal their desire to speak. This is more natural and more efficient. This may not produce the same quality of deliberation, as a quiet member may not voice a significant concern. Use this format when efficiency is paramount.
   
   
2. “Consecutive Round” where the facilitator consecutively asks everyone in the circle to respond. This causes more deliberation where even quiet people are drawn out to express their concerns. Use this format when deliberation is paramount.

 

How to run the Consent Process

A. Simple Consent (shortest format)

1. Facilitator proposes a policy
   
2. Consent round
   

 

B. Proposal Consent (medium format)

1. Present proposal
   
2. Clarifying questions (may be a round)
   
3. Quick reactions
   
4. Consent round

 

C. Proposal Consent (long format)

When no proposal is present…
Information Gathering (frame the aim)

1. Explain the need or aim
   
2. Identify the question, exploring issues
   
3. Consent to the issues
   

Proposal Development (transformation)

1. Round to collect ideas
   
2. Combine ideas and draft a proposal
   
3. Confirm that the draft proposal addresses all the issues
   

Consent (output)

1. Read exact wording (secretary or facilitator)
   
2. Consent round
   
3. Announce the decision and celebrate

 

Seeking the best course of action
It is easier to go along with a proposal under consent because nothing is cast in stone. The group is working toward the best course, so if there are problems, refinements can come into play later. If need be, the course can even be changed dramatically. Consent is an invitation to everyone in the group to become more creative. Any problem is a puzzle laid on the table that everyone can help solve.

 

In practice, sociocracy has a format for the overall meeting and other situations including how to handle a proposal (see sidebar).

Let’s assume that a proposal has been brought to the meeting. Step one is its presentation.

 

The next step is the “clarifying round” in which everyone at the meeting, in turn, has a chance to ask questions so they fully understand the proposal. No objections, no reactions, no cross-talk or interruptions, just clarification at this point.

 

In the third step, the “quick reaction round,” everyone in turn goes around again and voices any problems or concerns they have with the proposal.

 

Step four is the consent round. If problems were raised in step three, the facilitator would work with the note taker or the group as a whole to tweak the proposal so those objections are overcome and everyone can live with the proposal – at least to give it a try. If that tweaking isn’t enough and someone still has reasoned and paramount objections to the amended proposal, the adaptation continues until everyone can live with the amended proposal.

 

The process sounds time-consuming but once a group is familiar with the steps, it proceeds quickly. And meetings aren’t dominated by one or two outspoken members. Instead, everyone has a voice. Consensus supporters would say that a good facilitator makes sure quiet members speak up and the outspoken are less vocal. Consent seems to make that balance an integral part of the process.

Sociocratic attributes that work:

1. Sustainable size required. Keep each group small (7 - 40 best, 250 max).
   
2. Split up the work into distinctive domains. Smaller groups tend to act more expeditiously.
   
3. Capitalize on diverse skills and interests. Larger groups tend to have more diverse deliberation.
   
4. Small size increases authentic communication and cohesion.
   
5. Designed to encourage everyone to be a critical stakeholder.
   
6. Decisions are shared and the process is efficient.
   
7. Communication is maximized via two-way double linking
   
8. Scalability - networks are encouraged

Suggested Next Steps in a Phased Implementation:

 

The AMC will use a phased transition to a sociocratic model…

1. to provide a more stable transition while maximizing current expertise, and
   
2. to develop required sociocratic skills in its members, and
   
3. to allow for each circle to become clear as to whom they may want to select as representative in the core circle.
   

To that end, circle representatives will be selected by lower outer work circles when…

1. The core inner circle has developed expertise in a stable sociocratic consent process and is ready to accept new members.
   
2. An individual lower outer work circle has developed expertise in a stable sociocratic consent process, and
   
3. An individual lower outer work circle has become clear as to whom they may want to select as their representative(s) in the core inner circle.
   

There may be additional requirements determined through the sociocratic process.

The Core may want to create a temporary implementation circle that would only last as long as it takes to implement a new structure successfully. This circle could gradually be phased out. This circle could secure training in Sociocratic implementation and Non-Violent Communication. Jack Boyd volunteers to help in this circle.

Overall mission, values, vision, goals or aims, and objectives should be written down for the organization. Sub-circles would inherent these broad guidelines and further refine them for their own work domain.

Once the core group feels comfortable with their implementation plan, the membership needs to be included as the plan suggests.

Appropriate feedback mechanisms should be put in place between the membership and each circle. This becomes another “quality assurance” tool to keep us on course.