There is a narrative in western society we keep dragging along since the second half of last century, and it is ever more present now as it has become the standing ground of much of the debates around the war in Ukraine; we are often presented with a matter of fact: Communism has failed, and we can only choose between democracy and tyranny. In other words, democracy is all we have.

Is that true? Is that the one and the only way to manage our being together?

As we could see in the recent Brazilian elections, but it is true also for our homelands and other democracies around the world, societies are strongly polarised and using majority voting to select representatives produces governing bodies that often stand for the instances and view of only 50% (+1) of the (voting) members, leaving the remaining voices unheard, frustrated and marginalised. Is this the best system to make decisions for our country? And for our city? Or our block?

^{Photo by Element5 Digital on Unsplash}

What about other systems we are surrounded by? Businesses, for example? They tend to follow autarchic or oligarchic models, where the CEO or the board decides everything, and workers down the ladder implement decisions at the top level. I guess we are all too familiar with this approach. But there are also NGOs, collectives or cooperatives, where it is common to find flat governance based on consensus and general assemblies. This works well in some cases, but bringing everyone to agree on the same point is very time-demanding and prone to frustration.

While seeking other possibilities, we lately had the chance to explore sociocracy. We spent 40 days job shadowing in Arterra Bizimodu, an intentional community in Spain which runs in a Sociocratic fashion. We are also in the process of supporting Fundacja Wyobraź sobie, a relatively small Polish NGO, in adding elements of sociocracy into its original vertical structure. Here is what we have understood so far through this journey.

What is sociocracy?

Sociocracy is a form of governance, a way to manage and organise a system. Yet, unlike democracy, it does not make use of majority rule. Still, it favours consent-based decision-making, giving equal voice to every person in the system - being it an organisation, an institution or a community - ensuring a flat and resilient structure which, on the one hand, empowers people, on the other creates a space for effective and flexible actions, focused on specific goals.

As sociocracy.info puts it, sociocracy is both:

• A social ideal that values equality and the rights of people to determine the conditions under which they live and work, and
• An effective method of organising associations, businesses, and governments, large and small.

Sociocracy has been introduced to various organisations, NGOs, businesses, intentional communities, and institutions. And in fact, the first organisation which based its structure on sociocracy was the Werkplaats Kindergemeenschap, a Dutch school.

How did it come along?

The term "sociocracy" was first used in 1851 by Auguste Comte, inspired by sociology. Comte, who lived amid the struggles between monarchy and republic in XIX century France, proposed the idea of a government run by sociologists to ensure the benefits for all and not only for the ruling class. One of the active advocates of sociocracy was Lester Frank Ward, who saw it as a direct development of democratic majority voting. His concept was further elaborated in the middle of the XX century by Kees Boeke and Beatrice Boeke-Cadbury, who used sociocracy in their school in the Netherlands (Werkplaats Kindergemeenschap - Children's Community Workshop, the school exists till today). In the 1960s, one of Boake's students, Gerard Endenburg, brought sociocracy into business - at that time, invariably an autocratic system, where the boss alone made the decisions. The idea was to convert the classic vertical, top-to-bottom structure of his parent's engineering company into a flatter organisation that would empower its workers. Endenburg created the Sociocratic Circle Organizing Method, based on a circular process and feedback loop - the organisation is divided into circles, corresponding to units or departments, and they are connected to other circles through a feedback loop, making the work more effective and inclusive. The principles behind this method became the base of today's sociocracy.

What are the main principles?

1. Circles

A sociocratic structure is based on small groups called circles. Each circle has a specific domain, and typically a few members are involved in its implementation. Depending on the organisation's size, there can be just one circle or several of them, set into a so-called circular hierarchy.

In each circle, there are specific roles to be fulfilled concerning the decision-making process:

• Leader, who is responsible for the general management of the circle.
• Delegate, the second link to the higher circle, as explained below.
• Secretary, who typically takes the minutes and ensures that information from the meetings is available to all organisation members.
• The facilitator prepares the agenda for a meeting (in consultation with the leader) and facilitates the conversation during the meeting, fostering effectiveness and ensuring an equal voice for everybody.

The same person can fill some roles while others are separated for conceptual or technical reasons (e.g. leader and delegate need to be two different people). It's also not recommended to match the facilitator role with the secretary as it's challenging to lead the process and make notes at the same time). So, there are different roles, but each member has equal decision-making power.

Circles are responsible for the implementation of specific goals, and they have complete power over decisions which concern their job. The idea is that people responsible for a particular work are the best experts in deciding how the work should be organised. Their decision may influence other circles and should be announced (and open for consultation) clearly and transparently. Decisions which involve more than one circle are made at a higher level (for example, in the coordination circle).

Although we use words such as "hierarchy" or "higher", a sociocratic structure is flat or often called circular. It doesn't include power over. Circles ensure effective work and decision-making in smaller groups. A typical circular hierarchy may consist of several operational circles (or sub-circles), which are organised by areas of interest around a smaller number of department circles with the general or coordination circle on top. Each operational circle has representatives in the relevant department circle, and each department circle has representatives in the coordination circle. Representatives are members of "higher" circles and are included in consent-based decision-making. This avoids power over - the top cannot take autocratic or majority-based decisions about what people directly involved in a task should be doing.

How does it look in practice?

In Arterra Bizimodu, which consists of around 30 full-time members, there is one coordination circle made up of two representatives for each of the three management circles, plus one coordinator chosen by consent every two years. A management circle consists of leaders of the operational circles which pertain to it. Each management circle is responsible for a different area; for example, there is the ecological management circle, under which you can find operational circles working on gardens, animals, mushrooms, and energy, including biogas, solar panels, etc. Arterra is a 9 years old intentional community of people living together, and it experiments with sociocracy from the very beginning of its existence.

On the other hand, Fundacja Wyobraź sobie was trying to introduce sociocracy to an existing structure. In this case, we started by creating around 10 circles based mainly on the already up-and-running educational programs. Yet, we quickly realised that that's quite a number and it would give us more work instead of making the management more effective. As for the moment, we have established 8 circles, including 5 operational circles: Global Education, Skills for Future, Emotional and Social Development, Personal Development, and Parental Development and 3 supporting circles: promotion, fundraising, and finance. It makes 8 operational circles altogether. We also have the leaders circle, which includes leaders from each operational circle. It gives us two levels of "circular hierarchy" (operational circles - leaders circle), while Arterra operates on three levels (operational circles - management circles - coordination circle). The point is each system has a different size and needs, so the complexity of the structure has to be adjusted accordingly. And that is a process.

2. Double link

Each circle has two representatives in the "higher" circle in the hierarchy - the leader of the circle, responsible for passing the information from the "higher" circle to its own (top-down link), and the delegate who is responsible for passing the voice of the circle to those on the higher level (bottom-up link). The double link ensures transparency and objective representation, avoiding the points of view of a single person getting in the way but also preventing this person from being torn apart by the natural dynamics between higher and lower circles. Furthermore, it keeps the slant toward a flat, inclusive structure as the leader and delegate are members of operational and "higher" circles with full rights in decision-making. It also allows a constant flow of information and feedback which is one of the bases of sociocracy. Conversely, having two representatives instead of one doubles the time people need to be involved in the task.

How does it look in practice?

In Arterra Bizimodu, two people represent each management circle in the coordination circle. The management circles consist of leaders of the operational circles or people whose main involvement is based on a specific operational circle (each person usually belongs to 2-3 different operational circles and one management circle). Community members can also decide not to be part of a management circle; in this case, they get more time to work at the operational circle level.

In Fundacja Wyobraź sobie, at the moment, each operational circle is represented by only one person in the leader circle. On the other hand, most of the leaders belong to more than one circle, so they can keep other leaders accountable and contribute in terms of connection and feedback from operational circles they belong to but do not lead.

3. Consent

Decisions in sociocracy are made on consent, meaning a motion is approved if there is no objection. It differs from consensus, which requires the approval of all members. In other words, in agreement, a decision is made only when everybody says "yes". In consent, it is enough that nobody says "no", which makes quite a difference.

To understand consent well, it's crucial to catch on to the role of objection. Approval doesn't mean that a circle's decision is the best possible decision from my point of view. It simply means that it is in my tolerance range, even if it's not my preference. What's more, thinking about potential objections, I don't consider my interest but the goals of the circle I belong to. I object if this particular decision will stop me (or the group) from being able to contribute to the goal entirely. In other words, an objection is seen as a gift. With the objection should come tangible arguments and a new proposal. After an objection, the proposal is re-formulated and open again for opinions and discussions. Usually, before the round of consent (when everyone gives their consent, objection or expresses doubts), there is a time for questions to the proposal, first reactions described, for example, by thumb up or down and a round of opinions. Rounds are a typical element of sociocratic meetings, which ensure hearing the voice of everybody before the group makes a consent-based decision. One by one, every person in the forum expresses their opinion about a given topic.

In sociocracy, decisions are often reviewed and adjusted iteratively. It's a flexible, effective, agile system based on feedback, experimenting and constant improvement in search of the most suitable solutions for the time being. Again, an important aspect is that even as a group, the aim is not to reach the best possible decision but the one which is "good enough for now, safe enough to try".

Consent is also used to decide which topics will be discussed during the meeting and how much time the circle will dedicate to them. Consent is a tool used in department and coordination circles. Operational circles may make a consent-based decision about using another way of decision making, more suitable for their particular goal.

How does it look in practice?

Consent in Arterra is fully embedded in the meetings, which have a particular structure, providing each person with the opportunity to express their opinion and co-decide. At Fundacja Wyobraź sobie, meetings don't have a clearly outlined structure. We are still experimenting and looking for the best way to make decisions, taking into account the uneven distribution of responsibility (which, especially in financial matters, rests almost entirely with the management board).

4. Elections without candidates

Roles in sociocracy are usually decided using consent and with no candidates. Some sources mention elections without candidates as a separate principle, while others see it as an extension of the declaration of consent. When an election time comes, the circle first describes the particular role, indicating responsibilities, qualifications and term of office. Then, each member of the circle writes on a paper the name of the person who thinks is best suited for the role - they may also write their name. After revealing all the names, there is a round of opinions when people argue about their choice. After the swirl of the views goes by, the facilitator proposes a specific person based on what they heard. Then, usually is a round of consent to see whether everyone supports the indicated person, including the person who expresses the opinion at the end after hearing all the arguments and voices of others. Without consent, the facilitator may check the statements or propose another person.

Elections without candidates may be used to choose people for each role in the circle (leader, delegate, secretary, facilitator and others) and ensure that all the positions are held by people the group trusts.

How does it look in practice?

According to our experience in Arterra, where elections without candidates are a common practice, this is the most challenging principle and requires a serious mind switch when accustomed to more conventional procedures. The more so in a structure which already exists and has roles already in place (for example, leaders). This is the case of Fundacja Wyobraź sobie, which had leaders in specific areas when we decided to introduce sociocracy. The leader's team almost didn't change, and we haven't run elections without candidates yet. As mentioned before, we don't have a delegate role yet, it's usually the leader who also facilitates the meeting, and we choose the secretary at the beginning of each session. This part still needs discussion, yet as we are just a few months into the process, we give ourselves time and space to see what works best for us.

Is sociocracy good for you?

That's a question every group, collective, company, organisation, and community has to answer. What convinced us about sociocracy is how inclusive it is of everyone's voice while keeping it flexible and effective. Effectiveness is one of the 3 (somebody says 7) rules of sociocracy, together with equivalence (everyone's voice matters) and transparency (access to information for everybody in the organisation and open work, with no hidden agendas and closed meetings). For now, using feedback and making good decisions allow organisations to stay flexible and experiment with various solutions, finding the one which suits them best for the time being. Decisions made by consent ensure that each member owns the project, feels heard and is co-responsible for the outcome.

What can be challenging, on the other hand, is that sociocracy requires time and specific interpersonal skills, for example, being able to give and receive feedback, look at the proposal from the perspective of the common goals and not of the personal taste and mood, communication skills, but also courage in expressing one's opinions and taking responsibility. It is incredibly challenging in groups which are used to rigid hierarchy and autocratic approach, but also to those conformed to majority voting decision making - the change requires openness from the side of the leaders as much as from that of the workers or members who will become more accountable for their work, yet also freer to organise it the way suits them and the goal best. To be effective, sociocracy requires a certain number of people who understand it well and trained facilitators for the excellent flow of the meetings. Sociocracy also requires a significant level of trust. There is no transparency or agreement for independent decisions if there is no trust. We need to feel we are a team working together toward a common goal and assume others come with the best intentions, even when they stand for options which wouldn't be our first choice. While the knowledge and skills connected to sociocracy and facilitation can be learned, trust and dedication to the group and the goal do not come out of a seminar - they require constant work and focus. But then again, sociocracy or not, isn't that the foundation of any successful entity?

In the article, we focused on organisations, businesses, and communities - relatively small groups, as sociocracy was mainly used in these systems. No country or even city tried to introduce sociocracy instead of democracy and majority voting. But the fact it didn't happen so far doesn't mean it cannot. People created every governance system, and it can be changed or improved. Sociocracy is another idea which brings more equality, more space for those voices that are not included at the moment, and more engagement and co-creation. Sounds like a dream? Democracy, women voting, human rights - they were all just a dream before we turned the matter of fact.

---

The text was inspired by the following articles as well as Anna Książek and Andrea Pucci's experience of 40-days job shadowing in Arterra Bizimodu and their experience in coordinating the introduction of elements of sociocracy in Fundacja Wyobraź sobie, both implemented within Ze Skawiny w świat project, co-financed by the European Union.

---

Bibliography:

• www.holaspirit.com/blog/sociocracy
• medium.com/@Harri_Kaloudis/a-brief-introduction-to-sociocracy-a0770f220937
• www.sociocracy.info/what-is-sociocracy
• www.sociocracyforall.org
• en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociocracy