Etikettarkiv: Sociocracy

Liv i arbetet 6

Om värderingar

Jag nämnde i mitt förförra inlägg att sociokrati under ett par års tid var mitt huvudspår i sökandet efter bättre sätt att arbeta tillsammans. Två månader efter att jag hade börjat mitt sökande upptäckte jag sociokrati via holakrati i november 2012. Holakrati och sociokrati bygger på samma grundläggande principer. Båda hanterar organisering som ett reglertekniskt problem. Båda värderar också transparens och effektivitet. Den stora skillnaden är att sociokrati också betonar likvärdighet, dvs. allas människors lika värde. Det gör inte holakrati!

Min slutsats är att bättre sätt att arbeta tillsammans ytterst handlar om värderingar. Vad är det vi värderar mest? Människorna eller systemet? Vårt val av värderingar är helt avgörande! Nästa gång kommer jag att titta närmare på detta.

Relaterade inlägg:
Book Review: Sociocracy
Book Review: Holacracy
Holacracy vs. Sociocracy

Organizing retrospective 109

This is a post in my series on organizing ”between and beyond.” Other posts are here. This is a retrospective of what has happened during the week. The purpose is to reflect on the work itself. Here is my previous retrospective.

What has happened? What needs to be done?
This week, I started a new series of posts in Swedish on Liv i arbetet (life in work). I started searching for better ways of working together six years ago, in September 2012. I’m going to write about this search. It is my personal story. Hence, I need to write in my native language. Here’s a short summary:

  • Wednesday — I used this poem which I wrote last year as a starting point. Yeah, it’s pretty personal.
  • Thursday — I wrote that assumptions usually are valid within certain limits, but not necessarily outside of these.
  • Saturday — This means that assumptions which are valid for machines aren’t valid for human beings.
  • Sunday — Today, I wrote about sociocracy. I spent several years of my search for better ways of working on sociocracy. I even wrote an e-book on sociocracy together with John Schinnerer, who is a founding member of The Sociocracy Consulting Group. There are some good ideas in sociocracy, but I think the engineering preconceptions and assumptions are too strong. Here is an old post on the phenomenology of sociocracy. (The engineering perspective is even stronger in sociocracy’s cousin Holacracy. Here is an old post on Holacracy and Arthur Koestler. Koestler coined the term holarchy in The Ghost in the Machine.)

Besides starting my new series of posts on Liv i arbetet, I also posted the following reflections on generative organizing:


A new book arrived this week. It’s Deep Change: Discovering the Leader Within by Robert E. Quinn. I’m looking forward to reading this book.


Otherwise, I’ve spent the week reading Andreas Weber‘s The Biology of Wonder: Aliveness, Feeling, and the Metamorphosis of Science. I’ve read about half of the book, but can already say that it’s one of the most interesting book I’ve read since I started my reading odyssey six years ago. The disconnection between humans and their organizations is, in my view, related to the disconnection between humans and nature. Andreas Weber eloquently addresses the latter. I’ve ordered Andreas Weber’s next book on Biopoetics: Towards an Existential Ecology. I hope it will arrive in the next few days. I’m looking forward to reading this book too.

What was good? What can be improved?
I’m really glad that I finally got started with my new series on Liv i arbetet.

I see a connection between Andreas Weber’s intrinsic value and Robert Hartman’s The Structure of Value. Hartman’s seminal work is about the valuation of value. Intrinsic value is more valuable than extrinsic value, and extrinsic value is more valuable than systemic value. Here is my review of Robert Hartman’s book.

I also see a connection between Andreas Weber’s meaning, as manifested in the body, and Eugene Gendlin’s felt meaning, which is a bodily comprehension. Here is my review of Eugene Gendlin’s Experiencing and the Creation of Meaning: A Philosophical and Psychological Approach to the Subjective.

Several books have arrived the past few weeks which I haven’t had the time to read yet. I also have a couple of book reviews that I need to write. Also, I’d like to internalize Andreas Weber’s thinking and integrate it with all the other reading that I’ve done. It will take some time, for sure.

Notes:
1 Andreas Weber, The Biology of Wonder: Aliveness, Feeling, and the Metamorphosis of Science (New Society Publishers, 2016), pp. 12, 330-3, 338.
2 Andreas Weber writes that meaning makes itself manifest in the body. Ibid., p. 90.

Related posts:
Organizing in between and beyond posts

Liv i arbetet 4

Människor är inte komponenter i ett system

Rätt snart efter att jag hade bestämt mig för att aktivt börja söka efter bättre sätt att arbeta tillsammans hittade jag sociokrati. Det blev mitt huvudspår under ett par års tid. Jag skrev en entusiastisk bokrecension, deltog i flera sociokrati-workshops, utbildade mig i sociokrati-facilitering, samt skrev en e-bok om sociokrati tillsammans med en amerikansk sociokrati-konsult, som råkar ha svenska som andraspråk.

Min vana trogen gick jag på djupet. Jag läste de två böcker om sociokrati som grundaren av sociokrati själv har skrivit. Och det var då jag såg det—att sociokrati betraktar organisering som ett reglertekniskt problem. Det innebär att själv-organisering i sociokrati i själva verket handlar om själv-reglering. Det förklarar också varför samtycke vid beslutsfattandet enbart avser policy-beslut.

En sociokratisk organisation är regelstyrd och förvånansvärt traditionell. Det gäller även ledarskapet. Ledaren för kretsen styr det dagliga arbetet. Under en tid var jag ledare för en krets i en brittisk sociokrati-organisation. Jag upplevde att den överordnade kretsens ledare använde lite väl mycket ”peka-med-hela-handen”. Samtycke gäller enbart policy-beslut. I övrigt är förväntan att du gör du som du blir tillsagd.

Samtidigt så ska inte samtycke vid policy-beslut underskattas (i detta ingår öppna val). Det är ett stort steg framåt—men det är inte tillräckligt bra! En människa är inte en komponent i ett reglertekniskt system. Ett intressantare exempel på hur man kan arbeta bättre tillsammans finns i den skola där grundaren av sociokrati gick som barn. Det var där han fick några av sina grundläggande idéer, som trots allt är riktigt bra. Tyvärr är tillämpningen i sociokrati lite väl ingenjörsmässig. Människor är inte komponenter i ett reglertekniskt system.

Relaterade inlägg:
E-bok: Sociokrati—En metod för självstyre
Book Review: Sociocracy
Book Review: We the People

Book Review: Many Voices One Song

Many Voices One Song: Shared Power with Sociocracy by Jennifer Rau and Jerry Koch-Gonzalez is a new book on sociocracy. The book is a collection and description of sociocratic tools and practices.1 Sociocracy is a set of principles and tools for shared power. The assumption is that power sharing requires a plan.2

Sociocracy is designed to distribute power.3 Sociocracy enables each team to contribute to the organization’s mission.4 The teams decide themselves how they govern themselves.5 Values translates into principles that are the underpinnings of the tools described in the book.6 Equivalence and effectiveness are the two major principles in sociocracy. Equivalence is defined as everyone’s needs matter equally.7 Sociocracy strives for both effectiveness and equivalence.8

There are three reasons for why Jennifer Rau and Jerry Koch-Gonzales have written the book. The reasons are (1) to build skills, (2) to avoid reinventing the wheel, and (3) because they care deeply about equivalence. In the book, they share what they know about shared power and how to do it.9

The book has six major chapters covering the:

  • Organizational structure (68 pages).10
  • Consent decision-making (60 pages).11
  • On feedback and learning (28 pages).12
  • How to run a sociocratic meeting (56 pages).13
  • Roles and elections (29 pages).14
  • Implementing sociocracy (37 pages).15

Jennifer Rau and Jerry Koch-Gonzales write that implementing sociocracy is harder than running an organization sociocratically. If you are the one who is in power, you have to be willing to share the power. And if you are not in power, you have to ask the one who is in power to share it.16 This means that the implementation of sociocracy starts in your mind.17 No matter what you do, you need to have two things absolutely clear: (1) a commitment to equivalence, and (2) a clear aim. You need to start with a shared agreement that you will strive for equivalence. The shared aim is necessary for effectiveness.18

To summarize, this book is a sociocracy manual. Jennifer Rau and Jerry Koch-Gonzales are very experienced. They say themselves that if you are a beginner, the book probably gives you a level of details that is way too much.19 The book requires, in other words, a combination of reading and practicing and reading again.

The paradox, for me, is that 300 pages are required to describe what basically is common sense. People have cooperated for as long as humanity has existed. The principles behind sociocracy are not new.20 Nomadic hunter-gatherer societies practice it, and have likely been practicing it, since prehistoric times.21 The book can help you to become more effective, provided you embrace equivalence and shared power. The latter is not so common.

Notes:
1 Jennifer Rau and Jerry Koch-Gonzalez, Many Voices One Song: Shared Power with Sociocracy (Sociocracy For All, March 2018), p.ix.
2 Ibid., p.1.
3 Ibid., p.2.
4 Ibid., p.1.
5 Ibid., p.7.
6 Ibid., p.3.
7 Ibid., p.5.
8 Ibid., p.6.
9 Ibid., p.7.
10 Ibid., pp.16–84.
11 Ibid., pp.85–145.
12 Ibid., pp.146–174.
13 Ibid., pp.175–231.
14 Ibid., pp.232–261.
15 Ibid., pp.262–299.
16 Ibid., p.262.
17 Ibid., p.263.
18 Ibid., p.266.
19 Ibid., p.13.
20 Ibid., p.ix.
21 See Sociocracy as practiced by the G/wi.

Related posts:
Book Review: Sociocracy by Gerard Endenburg
Sociocracy as practiced by the G/wi

Real vs. fake sociocracy

Introduction
Bob Emiliani writes about real vs. fake Lean on his blog.

Emiliani’s point is that real Lean includes respect for people.

I think there is a similar situation with real vs. fake sociocracy.

Fake sociocracy
Gerard Endenburg says, for example, in this article that the greatest danger when introducing sociocracy is that it is half done.

It is so simple, and many people think it is. They are using it in a way that makes me think: no!

Our experience is that often only consent is introduced, but not the other principles. First, the double link is omitted.

In other words, fake sociocracy leaves out key elements.

Real sociocracy
I know from having read Gerard Endenburg’s two major books on sociocracy that equivalence is very important for Endenburg.

Real sociocracy is based on the core value of equivalence.

However, equivalence can be abused in many subtle (and not so subtle) ways.

Interview with Gerard Endenburg

Here is Ben Kuiken’s interview with Gerard Endenburg ”Sociocracy is the only way forward”.

Endenburg says that: ”Even in his own former company, the adjacent Endenburg Electronics, the double clutch [double-link] is no longer intact.”

This means that Endenburg Electronics isn’t fully sociocratic any longer. It’s not mentioned in the article, but the reason seems to be that Piet Slieker is no longer CEO. (However, I haven’t got this confirmed.)

Endenburg also says that: ”… the biggest misunderstanding about sociocracy: it is not anti-hierarchical. Hierarchy means nothing else than order, and there is nothing wrong with that.”

Maybe the hierarchy was too strong at Endenburg Electronics, since the double-link didn’t survive the change of CEO?

Endenburg sees hierarchy as necessary for order. Being influenced by David Bohm, I’d say information, and its meaning, is necessary for order. Hierarchy is an explicate order, while meaning is implicate.

Related posts:
Organizing in between and beyond posts

 

 

Analysis of Sociocracy and Holacracy

This post is part of my series on organizing ”between and beyond.” Other posts are here. The purpose of this post is to explore the history and key assumptions of Sociocracy and Holacracy®. The post is based on my previous posts about Sociocracy and Holacracy. The analysis is summarized here.

Background
I first heard about Sociocracy and Holacracy in 2012. Both attracted my interest and I wrote an enthusiastic book review of We the People: Consenting to a Deeper Democracy by John Buck and Sharon Villines in November 2012. I subsequently participated in several Sociocracy workshops with James Priest, got training in facilitating Sociocracy by The Sociocracy Consulting Group, and wrote an ebook on Sociocracy (in Swedish), Sociokrati: En metod för självstyre, together with John Schinnerer.

History
Sociocracy is a governance method based on consent decision-making and cybernetic principles, which was developed by Gerard Endenburg during the 1960s and 1970s. Endenburg published his first book on Sociocracy in 1981.1 The early development of Holacracy was influenced by sociocracy. Brian Robertson filed a patent application on Holacracy in June 2007 (Pub. No. US 2009/0006113 A1), where sociocracy, in my view, is prior art. The patent application was subsequently abandoned. The first Holacracy Constitution was launched in 2009. Robertson’s book on Holacracy was published in 2015.2

Objectives
Gerard Endenburg’s objective with Sociocracy is to enable everyone to develop as far as possible,3 while Brian Robertson wants to harness the tremendous sensing power of the human consciousness available to our organizations.4

Assumptions
Endenburg and Robertson have very different views on organizations and their purposes. Endenburg thinks that organizations exists for the people,5 while Robertson views the organizations as separate entities that have their own purposes beyond just serving people.6 Endenburg emphasizes the importance of each person’s equivalence in the decision-making and the potential for existence and development,7 while Robertson views people as role fillers8 and differentiates between role and soul.9 Robertson’s favorite metaphor to illustrate dynamic steering and constant weaving is riding a bicycle.10 Endenburg uses the same metaphor to illustrate weaving and the circle process.11 Both use nested circles which are linked via two separate roles.12,13 In short, both use the same basic rules, or principles.

Incompatibilities
Endenburg and Robertson use very different languages. Robertson’s book is very readable, while Endenburg’s book is difficult to read. Endenburg admits that he may sound rather cold and formal, but thinks it’s necessary.? Robertson, on the other hand, uses words creatively, and gives them his own slant. He calls, for example, the organizational structure of nested circles a holarchy,14 a term coined by Arthur Koestler. Robertson also claims that Holacracy abolishes hierarchy, while a holarchy, according to Koestler, is a hierarchy.15

Sociocracy and Holacracy are based on specific assumptions applicable to mechanical and electrical systems. Endenburg uses two examples to illustrate the feedback control loop, or circle process, in cybernetics. The first example is, as already mentioned, riding a bicycle.16 The second metaphor is a central heating system.17 Endenburg acknowledges that the operating limits in riding a bicycle are different from those within a heating system, but he still thinks that they indicate constraints within which control may be exercised.18 Endenburg is aware that riding a bicycle is far more complex in reality than his simple example might suggest.19 He also acknowledges that people are not system components,20 but he doesn’t distinguish between machines and organisms in his reasoning.21 Neither does Robertson, who views people as sensors for the organization.22 But people are not machines (or sensors). Machines and organisms ARE different.

Holacracy prioritizes the systemic value of thought by keeping intrinsic human values out of the organizational space. Robert Hartman showed how values can be measured systemically, extrinsically, and intrinsically.23 For example, systemically a worker is a production unit, extrinsically one of several workers, and intrinsically a human being. In Holacracy, systemically an individual is a role and sensor, extrinsically one of several roles and sensors, and intrinsically a human being. The whole point of Holacracy is to allow an organization to better express its purpose.24 Every individual becomes a sensor for that purpose.25 Holacracy is focused on the organization and its purpose—not on people and their needs.26 The focus is only on what’s needed for the organization.27 Holacracy installs a system in which there’s no longer a need to lean on individual’s connections and relationships.28 Holacracy keeps human values out of the organizational space. 29 According to Robert Hartman, there is a tremendous gap between those who think in terms of human values and those who think in terms of non-human systems.30 Elevating systemic values OVER intrinsic human values is dehumanizing. Hartman goes a step further and says that ignoring life’s intrinsic value is the danger that threatens life itself.31

Conclusion
The operating limit on Sociocracy and Holacracy is that people are ”autonomic”.32

Notes:
1 Gerard Endenburg’s first book on Sociocracy was originally published in Dutch in 1981. The first English translation was published in 1988. The Eburon edition was published in 1998. See Gerard Endenburg, Sociocracy: The organization of decision-making (Eburon, 1998).
2 Holacracy is registered in the US Patent and Trademark Office. Brian Robertson’s book on Holacracy was published in 2015. See Brian J. Robertson, Holacracy: The Revolutionary Management System that Abolishes Hierarchy (Penguin, 2015).
3 Endenburg, Sociocracy, p. 5.
4 Robertson, Holacracy, p. 7.
5 Endenburg, Sociocracy, p. 142.
6 Robertson, Holacracy, p. 148.
7 Endenburg, Sociocracy, p. 167.
8 Robertson, Holacracy, p. 92.
9 Ibid., pp. 42–46.
10 Ibid., p. 129.
11 Endenburg, Sociocracy, pp. 16–19.
12 Ibid., pp. 10–11, 26–27.
13 Robertson, Holacracy, pp. 46–56.
14 Ibid., p. 38.
15 Arthur Koestler, The Ghost in the Machine (Last Century Media, 1982, first published 1967), p. 48.
16 Endenburg, Sociocracy, pp. 16—19, 23, 33—37, 223—224.
17 Ibid., pp. 19—23, 30, 36, 40.
18 Ibid., pp. 23, 30.
19 Ibid., p. 16.
20 Ibid., p. 39.
21 Ibid..
22 Robertson, Holacracy, pp. 4, 166, 198.
23 Robert Hartman, Freedom to Live: The Robert Hartman Story, p. 67.
25 Robertson, Holacracy, p. 34.
26 Ibid., p. 166.
27 Ibid., p. 198.
28 Ibid., p. 199.
29 Ibid., p. 200.
24 Ibid., p. 202.
30 Robert Hartman, Freedom to Live: The Robert Hartman Story, p. 124.
31 Ibid..
32 There is a distinction between being ”autonomic”, obeying self-law, and ”allonomic”, obeying some other’s law. See Norm Hirst, Research findings to date, Autognomics Institute, (accessed 4 August 2016)

Related posts:
Organizing in between and beyond posts
Book Review: Sociocracy
Book Review: Holacracy
Book Review: Freedom to Live
Holacracy-vs-sociocracy
The phenomenology of sociocracy
Is sociocracy agile?

Organizing in between and beyond

This is the first post in my series on organizing ”between and beyond.” Other posts are here.

The last chapter in Science, Order, and Creativity by David Bohm and F. David Peat is about ”the order between and beyond”.1 Bohm and Peat write that most attempts to find order, say a new theory, involve searching for a position between two theories.2 Physics faced this situation at the end of the 19th century when it was discovered that Maxwell’s electromagnetic theory didn’t accord with Newton’s classical mechanics. At first physicists tried to make the theories fit together in an order ”between.”3 It wasn’t until Einstein developed his theories of relativity that an order ”beyond” was discovered. Today, there’s a search for an order ”beyond” Einstein’s theories of relativity and quantum mechanics.

My point is that there’s a similar need to search for an order ”beyond” our traditional ways of organizing work. Many different approaches have been developed over the years. They all have different names — e.g., Lean, Agile, Holacracy, etc — and are often accompanied with a whole industry offering tools, training, consulting, certification, and other products and services. The problem, as I see it, is that most of these approaches are examples of what I would call organizing ”in between.”

A recent example is the attempt to combine Agile with Sociocracy. This is said to be ”a way to create alignment between Agile ecosystems and the business needs of strong leadership and a clear hierarchy.”4 Well, maybe? I have questioned the assumptions here. Neither Agile, nor Sociocracy, can be said to be totally satisfying. And I don’t think that the solution lies in combining strong hierarchical leadership with sociocratic participatory policy decision-making. This is, in my view, an example of organizing ”in between.” What is necessary is to move to an organizing ”beyond,” which transcends, in this case, the compromise between strong hierarchical leadership and sociocratic decision making on policies.

I don’t know how the organizing ”beyond” looks like. What I do know is that it will contain both leadership and decision making, yet move ”beyond” the limits of both. My search for better ways of working together continues.

Here is the next post in the series. Here are all posts.

Notes:
1 David Bohm and F. David Peat, Science, Order, and Creativity (Routledge, 2010-09-01, first published 1987-10-01), pp. 275–314.
2 Ibid., p. 308.
3 Ibid..
4 Pieter van der Meché, Jens Coldewey, Hendrik Esser, and Anders Ivarsson (contributor), Decision Making Systems Matter (The Agile Alliance, 2016), p. 1 (accessed 2016-07-20).

Related posts:
Organizing in between and beyond posts
Is sociocracy agile?

Is sociocracy agile?

Decision Making Systems Matter is an interesting article by Pieter van der Meché, Jens Coldewey, and Hendrik Esser, with Anders Ivarsson as additional contributor. The article is funded by the Agile Alliance and is a Supporting Agile Adoption publication. The authors describe how combining ”Agile with ideas from Sociocracy provides … a way to create alignment between Agile ecosystems and the business needs of strong leadership and a clear hierarchy”.1 The article gives excellent insights into sociocracy and is well worth reading! Pieter van der Meché has over 20 years of experience in sociocracy.2

Pictures from the article (from left to right): Pieter van der Meché, Jens Coldewey, and Hendrik Esser.

The assumptions in the article are 1) that ”a clear hierarchy and strong leadership” are required to achieve ”speed and control (coordination)” and 2) that ”policies … ensure alignment”.3 My question is whether ”strong hierarchical leadership and strong participatory [policy] decision making”4 contributes to agility? It’s possible, of course, that agreements on policies — which are defined as ”general agreements on the what, when, how and who”5 — can increase the speed. But a strong focus on policies can also become rigid. It’s as if sociocracy, for the sake of control, values policies and following a plan — the ”what, when, how, and who” — over responding to change.6

While a sociocratic organization certainly values individuals and interactions, it’s also policy-driven, which easily leads to a focus on process-discipline.7 Sociocratic leadership is furthermore ”conductor-like”.8 The idea is that you as the leader should coordinate (control) your team like ”a conductor of an orchestra”.9 It’s self-evident that you as a strong hierarchical leader value control over participation. What if the team can coordinate itself? (Here is an example of collaborative leadership in a conductorless orchestra.) And what if the challenge isn’t primarily to ensure ”alignment throughout the hierarchy”10 but to nurture collaboration throughout the organization?11

So, is sociocracy agile? I’d say no. It depends, of course, on what you mean by agile. My impression is that sociocracy values policies and control over people and collaboration. While there is value in the latter, sociocracy values the first more.12And, yes, decision making systems matter! But why limit participatory decision making to policy decisions only?13 It’s as if sociocracy doesn’t take the full consequences of participatory decision making.

Notes:
1 Pieter van der Meché, Jens Coldewey, Hendrik Esser, and Anders Ivarsson (contributor), Decision Making Systems Matter (The Agile Alliance, 2016), p. 1 (accessed 2016-07-20).
2 Ibid., p. 14.
3 Ibid., p. 7.
4 Ibid..
5 Ibid..
6 Agile values ”responding to change over following a plan”. See the Agile Manifesto. There are similarities between sociocratic policies (what, when, how and who) and plans.
7 Agile also values ”Individuals and interactions over processes and tools”. See the Agile Manifesto. The focus on policies easily leads to a focus on process-discipline, i.e., define the policies and processes (albeit in a participatory way!) and make sure people follow them.
8 Pieter van der Meché, Jens Coldewey, Hendrik Esser, and Anders Ivarsson (contributor), Decision Making Systems Matter (The Agile Alliance, 2016), p. 8 (accessed 2016-07-20).
9 Ibid..
10 Ibid., p. 10.
11 It’s an Agile principle that business people and development teams must work together daily. See the Principles behind the Agile Manifesto.
12 This is a paraphrase of the Agile Manifesto. The crucial question here is which values are given precedence over others.
13 Elections of people to roles and responsibilities are allocations of resources and thus policy decisions. See The three principles in Sociocracy, Wikipedia (accessed 2016-08-02).

Updates:
2016-07-24: Pictures of authors added. Questions added. Text and notes updated.
2016-07-26: Questions updated. Text updated. Related post added.
2016-08-01: Middle section split into two parts.
2016-08-02: Note added. Minor changes in the text.

Related posts:
Principles for collaborative leadership
Organizing in between and beyond posts

What is healthy power?

The Healthy Power Alliance writes in its Healthy Power Manifesto that:

Healthy Power is the ability to do work over time
in a way that is good for all the people and systems involved:
the ecosystems, the human communities, the customers, the workers, the investors, the leaders,
all of us.
Healthy Power is circular, not linear or flat.
Healthy Power is fluid, not frozen.
Healthy Power is consensual, not coercive.1

The Healthy Power Alliance also writes that there are numerous models of Healthy Power:

The beautiful thing, the profoundly inspiring thing, is that if you want to make the power you live by into Healthy Power, you do not have to invent it yourself. You have years, decades, in some cases centuries of experience to draw on. If you want to bring Healthy Power to your workplace, community, or family, the options are numerous.2

Among the models, or gold standards, mentioned in the manifesto is Holacracy. It’s worth noting that Healthy Power is process power in Holacracy. Holacracy really doesn’t care how people feel as long as the process is honored. And Holacracy keeps human values out of the organizational space. This means, in my view, that the gold standards may not be so golden after all. I think we have to discover, and protect, Healthy Power ourselves. The beautiful thing is that we have millennia of experience to draw on. Healthy Power sees life’s intrinsic value. Unhealthy power doesn’t.

Notes:
1 The Healthy Power Alliance, The Healthy Power Manifesto, the short version, official until July 1st 2016. (Accessed May 15 2016)
2 The Healthy Power Alliance, The Healthy Power Manifesto, the FULL version, official until July 1st 2016. (Accessed May 15 2016)

Sociocracy is both right and wrong

Sociocracy uses consent decision-making. 1 If people are autonomic, 2 then decision-making by consent 3 is right. But if people are autonomic, then limiting consent to policy decisions only is wrong. 4

Sociocracy is based on cybernetic principles. 5 The basic feedback model consists of input-transformation-output steps, 6 and leading-doing-measuring activities for each step. The problem is that cybernetics is a poor metaphor for living systems. 7

If people are autonomic, then there is simply no input mechanism that can change their internal operations. Force may change people’s external acts, but they will rebel as soon as the force is removed. 8 The cognitive model of people as rule-following entities is inadequate.

Notes:
1 See Sociocracy, Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 23 April 2016. (Accessed 26 April 2016)
2 There is a distinction between being autonomic, obeying self-law, and allonomic, obeying some other’s law. See Norm Hirst, Research findings to date, Autognomics Institute. (Accessed 26 April 2016)
3 Sociocracy makes a distinction between consent and consensus. Consent is defined as ”no objections,” and objections are based on one’s ability to work toward the aims of the organization. See Sociocracy: Consent vs. consensus, Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 23 April 2016. (Accessed 26 April 2016)
4 All policy decisions are made by consent although the group may consent to use another decision-making method. See Sociocracy: Consent governs policy decision making (principle 1), Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 23 April 2016. (Accessed 26 April 2016)
5 Gerard Endenburg integrated his understanding of physics, cybernetics, and systems thinking, and applied these principles to human systems. See Sociocracy: In contemporary practice, Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 23 April 2016. (Accessed 26 April 2016)
6 The ideal feedback model consists of the input of information or resources, the transformation of those resources, and the output. A feedback loop of information is used to correct the process or confirm that it is accomplishing the aim. See Sharon Villines, Producing Organization: The 27 Block Chart, 2 May 2013. (Accessed 26 April 2016)
7 Cybernetics is an advanced form of mechanism, but it is still a mechanism, which makes it a poor metaphor for any living system. See Elisabeth Sathouris, Ecosophy: Nature’s Guide to a Better World, Kosmos Journal, Summary 2014. (Accessed 26 April 2016).
8 Living organisms are self-making, holistic, autonomous and have no information inputs. Perception begins in acts, not inputs. Autonomy implies organisms are closed to information. Information is not a commodity. In organisms, informare (formed within) replaces information. See Norm Hirst, Research findings to date, Autognomics Institute. (Accessed 26 April 2016)

Holacratic tyranny

People are viewed as sensors for the organization in Holacracy (and Sociocracy 3.0):

  • … individuals act as sensors (nerve endings) for the organization 1
  • An organization … is equipped with sensors — … the human beings who energize its roles and sense reality on its behalf. 2
  • One powerful way … is to harness the tremendous sensing power of the human consciousness available to our organizations. When those tensions can be processed quickly and effectively, then the organization can benefit … 3
  • The whole point of Holacracy is to allow an organization to better express its purpose. 4
  • … an ”organization” is an entity that exists beyond the people, with its own purpose to enact and with work to do beyond just serving the people doing that work. 5
  • Organizations running with Holacracy are first and foremost purpose-driven … with all activities ultimately being for the sake of realizing the organization’s broader purpose. Every member then becomes a sensor for that purpose … 6
  • The organization is depending on you, as its sensor, to give voice to the tensions you sense so that it can evolve. 7
  • Holacracy is focused on the organization and its purpose—not on the people and their desires and needs … 8
  • Many of the rules … are there specifically to ensure that the focus is only on what’s needed for the organization to express its purpose, … not on … anything else.” 9
  • … we are installing a system in which we no longer need to lean on our connections and relationships to be able to process organizational tensions. 10
  • … the organizational space is the result of working together role to role and governing those roles for the sake of the organization’s purpose. 11
  • [Holacracy] keeps human values out of the organizational space, which also keeps the organization out of our human-value space. 12

Metaphors both reflect and influence our thinking. I think the sensor 13 metaphor leads the thinking in the wrong direction. The processing of tensions becomes primary when people are viewed as sensors, but people are neither sensors, nor actuators. 14 Alternatives to navigating via tension are navigating via awareness, 15 or navigating via the quietness within. 16 The latter is, for example, what the Quakers do in their unanimous decision-making. 17

My view is that values 18 are primary – especially intrinsic human values. Values can be measured systemically, extrinsically, and intrinsically. 19 For example, systemically a worker is a production unit, extrinsically one of several workers, and intrinsically a human being. 20 In Holacracy, systemically an individual is a role and sensor, extrinsically one of several roles and sensors, and intrinsically a human being. Holacracy prioritizes the systemic value of thought by keeping intrinsic human values out of the organizational space. However, making use of control, not for the good of those who are in the system, but only for the system’s own benefit is problematic. Ultimately, it leads to tyranny. 21

Notes:
1 Bernhard Bockelbrink & James Priest, Introduction to Sociocracy 3.0, (v2016-01-29), p. 81. (Accessed 2016-04-09)
2 Brian Robertson, Holacracy: The Revolutionary Management System that Abolishes Hierarchy, p. 4.
3 Ibid., p. 7.
4 Ibid., p. 34.
5 Ibid., p. 148.
6 Ibid., p. 166.
7 Ibid., p. 194.
8 Ibid., p. 198.
9 Ibid., p. 199.
10 Ibid., p. 200.
11 Ibid., p. 201.
12 Ibid., p. 202.
13 A sensor is an object whose purpose is to detect events or changes in its environment, and then provide a corresponding output, Sensor – Wikipedia. (Accessed 2016-04-09).
14 An actuator is the mechanism by which a control system acts upon an environment, Actuator – Wikipedia. (Accessed 2016-04-09)
15 The proposition of Theory U is that the quality of results in any kind of socio-economic system is a function of the awareness that people in the system are operating from. See Theory U, Presencing Institute. (Accessed 2016-04-09).
16 There’s a center, a quietness within, from which action occurs. This quiet place has to be known and held. See Joseph Campbell with Bill Moyers, The Power of Myth, (Doubleday, 1987), pp. 161–162.
17 Holding the quite place, or silence, within is how Quakers make unanimous decisions. See Michael Sheeran, Beyond Majority Rule: voteless decisions in the Religious Society of Friends, pp. 49–50.
18 Value is used as defined by Robert Hartman. When life has meaning, it has value. The richer its meaning, the richer its value. See Robert Hartman Freedom to Live: The Robert Hartman Story, p. 60.
19 Ibid., p. 57.
20 Ibid., p. 67.
21 Tyranny, as used here, is making use of control, not for the good of those who are in the system, but for the system’s own benefit only.

Related posts:
Book Review: Holacracy
Book Review: Freedom to Live
Book Review: Beyond Majority Rule

Coming to the right solution for all

When we have to find solutions, we take our time. We begin in a circle of chiefs, with the grandmothers standing behind. The chiefs must answer to the grandmothers and to the community they represent for their decisions. They understand that they have a lot of responsibility, not to their own egos, but to the grandmothers and to the community. And so, if it is not possible to find the right solution at one council, we wait until the next time there is a meeting. There is no shame in not finding the solution quickly. There is shame in not coming to the right solution for all who are affected.
— Six Nations Elder in Canada 1

Notes:
1 Birgitt Williams, The Genuine Contact Way: Nourishing a Culture of Leadership, (DALAR, July 2014), p. 195.

Wirearchy vs. sociocracy

After having read the book Wirearchy: Sketches for the Future of Work I have started to think about the similarities and differences between wirearchy and sociocracy.

The first thing I notice is that wirearchy is an organizational design principle 1 while sociocracy, or rather the Sociocratic Circle-Organization Method, is a collaborative governance method 2. What I also can see is that sociocracy, as a method, supports some of wirearchy’s pillars, most notably trust 3 and the focus on results 4. One of the core values in sociocracy is transparency 5, which of course helps building trust. And the valuing of action, decisiveness, effectiveness, and focus 6 in sociocracy certainly supports the focus on results. The furthest distribution of all authority 7 in wirearchy is also well supported by the consent decision-making in sociocracy 8. I see some support for wirearchy’s credibility 9 in sociocracy – primarily through the use of the team’s collective intelligence 10 in the consent-decision making – but I don’t see any active questioning of ALL assumptions 11 in sociocracy. Assumptions behind decisions can of course be questioned in the consent decision-making, but it’s difficult to get a deeper understanding of the assumptions underlying the sociocratic principles. I have made an attempt in my article on the phenomenology (or way of seeing) in sociocracy. I have also questioned one of sociocracy’s assumptions in this post. What is clear is that the technical bias 12 is strong in sociocracy.

I wonder how a governance method would look like which fully supports the wirearchy organizing principle? It would be a wirecracy! And it would be descriptive, rather than prescriptive.

Notes:
1 Jon Husband et al., The Wirearchy Commons, Wirearchy: Sketches for the Future of Work, pp. 5, 8–9, 23, 25, 43, 62.
2 What Is Sociocracy and Why Do You Need it? (Accessed March 5, 2016)
3 Jon Husband et al., The Wirearchy Commons, Wirearchy: Sketches for the Future of Work, pp. 5, 17–18, 26.
4 Ibid., pp. 6, 9.
5 Values and Sociocracy (Accessed March 5, 2016).
6 Ibid..
7 Jon Husband et al., The Wirearchy Commons, Wirearchy: Sketches for the Future of Work, p. 6.
8 Principles and Practices of Sociocracy. (Accessed March 5, 2016)
9 Jon Husband et al., The Wirearchy Commons, Wirearchy: Sketches for the Future of Work, p. 5.
10 Ibid..
11 Ibid..
12 Gerard Endenburg, Sociocracy: As social design, (Eburon,1998), p. 5.

Related posts:
Book Review: Wirearchy
The phenomenology of sociocracy
The big misconception in sociocracy
What if the organization is a living system?

Gerard Endenburg on equivalence in sociocracy

Why is equivalence so important in sociocracy?

I went back to Gerard Endenburg’s book Sociocracy: As social design and found the following:

1) ”The axiomatic starting point of the method is mutual equivalence.” (p. 11)

2) ”The issue … is not one of mutual equality but about putting into practice equivalence … of individuals, as a norm rather than as a fact.” (p. 17)

To summarize, in sociocracy

1) equivalence is an axiom, which means equivalence is considered to be so evident and well-established that it is accepted without controversy or question.

2) equivalence is a norm rather than a fact, which means that equivalence is a target value.

Related post:
François Knuchel on equivalence in sociocracy

François Knuchel on equivalence in sociocracy

Why is equivalence so important in sociocracy?

Below is an answer (in italics, my emphasis in bold) from François Knuchel on the Sociocracy email discussion list on Yahoo, February 28, 2016:

Because otherwise some become more equal than others, as George Orwell put it.

Because it allows humanity, society and organisations to tap into the inner collective wisdom, which is always better than relying on the perspective of one or an elite of powerful decision-makers.

Because how else can you achieve distributed leadership?

Because if you don’t have equivalence you have already systemically predetermined the direction of decisions on the basis of those with a “more valid views” (more equal?) – who decides whose views are more valid than others, and why?

Because the socius can then resemble the workings of the networked brain – or can someone tell which of their brain cells is the big boss, the master cell?

Equivalence resembles what S. Toyoda called Respect, i.e.. fully respecting the perspectives of every single worker in an organisation, those doing the work. The whole premise of Total Quality Control, for instrance, is that everyone is involved in quality control, not just the inspectors or managers – “total” is a misnomer in English as it is not meant to refer to total control, but to the total workforce.

Equivalence (not equality) is fundamental to collaborative decision-making, and it goes beyond democracy in that people decide on issues rather electing representatives to decide for them and also overcomes the toxicity of majority voting (which in essence at worse means ignoring 49% of people’s perspectives). It goes beyond consensus which is really a kind of pseudo-equality. By giving everyone equivalent voice (in an organisation, circle etc) you allow the organisation, circle to consider all perspectives, rather than deciding on the basis of a few predetermined ones.

The whole point of sociocracy is to ensure equivalence in decision-making, and the point of the consent-based decision making procedures is to demonstrate this equivalence.

I would say equivalence is not just important to sociocracy, it is central.

…. at least in my understanding of it.

Related post:
Gerard Endenburg on equivalence in sociocracy

Lasse Berg om san-folkens egalitära kultur

I sin bok Gryning över Kalahari: hur människan blev människa skriver Lasse Berg om san-folken och deras kultur (min betoning i fetstil):

Hos san-folken råder en strängt egalitär kultur. 1

Samförstånd är det som gäller i alla san-grupper. … Men på samma sätt som jämlikhet inte betyder likhet, så kan samförstånd inte likställas med demokrati. Visserligen finns det inget auktoritärt eller formaliserat ledarskap, … men det är inte heller så att man röstar sig fram till någon sorts majoritetsbeslut. Vuxna och ungdomar samtalar om det som behöver bestämmas kollektivt … Men man diskuterar inte tills alla är överens utan tills man hittar ett beslut som ingen motsätter sig tillräckligt starkt. Naturligtvis väger olika röster olika tungt, beroende på speciell kunskap eller erfarenhet, när det gäller att forma denna allmänna samsyn. Ledarskapet är auktoritativt, inte auktoritärt. Det sociala trycket att komma överens är starkt, för att uttrycka det försiktigt. Samarbetsvilja har mycket hög kulturell status. 2

Men tvister uppstår naturligtvis. De är oftast av personlig art. … Det allmänt accepterade sättet att lösa konflikter är inte som i vår kultur att så tidigt som möjligt klargöra motsättningar och lyfta fram dem till diskussion. Istället utmärks san-kulturen av … utpräglad konflikträdsla. Man föredrar … att i första hand skämta bort problemet. Helst i elegant metaforisk form så att ingen tappar ansiktet eller blir utskämd. En spänd situation kan plötsligt punkteras av ett skämt som får lyssnarna att formligen vrida sig av skratt. Gränsen mellan skratt och vrede är ofta nästan osynlig. Det betyder inte att man inte tagit det hela på allvar, utan att man behandlat tvisten i inlindad form. 3

Noter:
1 Lasse Berg, Gryning över Kalahari: hur människan blev människa, Ordfront Stockholm, 2005, s. 256.
2 Ibid, s. 261.
3 Ibid.

Sociocracy vs. Holacracy vs. Sociocracy 3.0

Sociocracy is a governance method based on consent decision-making and cybernetic principles which was developed during the 1970s. Sociocracy significantly influenced the early development of Holacracy in 2006/2007. And Sociocracy 3.0 was introduced in 2014. Here’s my attempt to compare all three based on my reading of Gerard Endenburg’s first book on Sociocracy, Brian Robertson’s new book on Holacracy, and Bernhard Bockelbrink’s and James Priest’s freely available Introduction to Sociocracy 3.0, (v2015-04-23).

Endenburg, Sociocracy (Eburon, 1998), and Robertson, Holacracy (Penguin, 2015).

Sociocracy

Holacracy

Sociocracy 3.0
(v2015-04-23)

Aims To enable everyone to develop as far and in as diversified a manner as possible.1 To harness the tremendous sensing power of the human consciousness available to our organizations.8 To make the best use of the talent already present and help the organization move forward (grow) in its own pace through continuous improvement.15
People It is fundamentally important to involve the complete individual in the decision-making process.2 Differentiates between role and soul in order to keep the organization from being overly influenced by individual feelings and opinions that are not relevant to work.9 People gather around drivers, co-create policies, and act as sensors (nerve endings) for the organization.16
Equivalence Equivalence in policy decision-making, and in the potential for existence and development.3 Not mentioned.10 Everyone affected by a decision has the power to withdraw consent.17
Organization An organization exists for the people and it is in their interest that the actual problem-solving capability of their organization is as great as possible.4 An organization is an entity that exists beyond the people, with its own purpose to enact and with work to do beyond just serving the people doing that work.11 An organization is defined by its values, driver and strategy.18
Needs To give both the individual and the group space to arrange their lives in accordance with their own wishes and needs.5 To fulfill the organization’s purpose – not people’s desires and needs.12 To identify needs in relation to the organization itself, its members, stakeholders, customers or environment.19
Rules Rules are laid down to allow each individual to perform within limits. Equal say of each participant is guaranteed in determining the operating limits, or “thresholds“.6 Explicit roles with explicit accountabilities creates clarity on the operating limits.13 Policies within defined domains of accountability guide the flow of value.20 Policies are created to satisfy drivers.21 Core principles are values.22 Values are policy.23 Everyone needs to become an expert in policy.24
Empowerment Ensures that each system component, for example an individual, is empowered to issue its own instructions by consent.7 Establishes a core authority structure and a system that empowers everyone.14 Manages expectations via (self-)accountability. Accountability is a core principle.25 Collaboration happens within circles and follows principles and values.26

Update 2016-07-09:
Bernhard Bockelbrink and James Priest have updated their Introduction to Sociocracy 3.0, from (v2015-04-23) to (v2016-01-29), since I wrote this post 2015-11-28. Policies are now called agreements in Sociocracy 3.0.27 Maybe this is an attempt to change the language in Sociocracy 3.0? Here is a post on the difference between the language of rules & polices vs. the language of agreements. Like sociocracy and Holacracy, Sociocracy 3.0 still emphasizes that structure (rules, policies, agreements, or whatever you call it) guides the flow.28 Here is an example of when structure instead follows the flow.

Update 2016-10-06:
James Priest writes in a comment on this post that it’s a ”much more accurate description” to say that structure follows flow in Sociocracy 3.0, since Sociocracy 3.0 ”invites, facilitates and supports” optional and adaptable patterns. Here is James Priest’s comment. Here is my comment, and here is James Priest’s answer.

A constant challenge in comparing Sociocracy 3.0 with sociocracy and Holacracy is the constant change. An example, as already mentioned, is policies in Sociocracy 3.0 (v2015-04-23), which were changed to agreements in Sociocracy 3.0 (v2016-01-29).29 An agreement is designed to guide the flow of value.30

(CC BY-SA 4.0) Bernhard Bockelbring & James Priest, Sociocracy 3.0 Handbook (beta), (2016-09-14), p. 16.

Another example is patterns, which have grown into a framework in Sociocracy 3.0 during the year. A pattern is an agreement,31 and a template for successfully navigating a specific context.32 Sociocracy 3.0 is now said to form a pattern language,33 and has more than 60 patterns.34 The term pattern language was coined by Christopher Alexander. Here is a presentation by Christopher Alexander on patterns in architecture. And here is my analysis of Alexander’s pattern language.

(CC BY-SA 4.0) Bernhard Bockelbring & James Priest, Sociocracy 3.0 – A Framework of Patterns for Collaboration.

Notes:
1 Gerard Endenburg, Sociocracy: The organization of decision-making, (Eburon, 1998), p. 5.
2 Ibid..
3 Ibid., p. 167.
4 Ibid., p. 142.
5 Ibid., p. 10.
6 Ibid., pp. 23, 145.
7 Ibid., p. 22.
8 Brian Robertson, Holacracy: The Revolutionary Management System that Abolished Hierarchy, (Penguin, 2015), p. 7.
9 Ibid., pp. 42—46, 116.
10 Ibid., no quote on equivalence found.
11 Ibid., p. 148.
12 Ibid., p. 198.
13 Ibid., p. 41.
14 Ibid., p. 21.
15 Bernhard Bockelbring and James Priest, Introduction to Sociocracy 3.0, (v2015-04-23), pp. 5—7 (accessed 2015-11-28).
16 Ibid., pp. 56, 78, 82.
17 Ibid., p. 30.
18 Ibid., p. 186.
19 Ibid., p. 43.
20 Ibid., pp. 47, 49, 51.
21 Ibid., p. 48.
22 Ibid., p. 25.
23 Ibid., p. 182.
24 Ibid., p. 133.
25 Ibid., p. 33.
26 Ibid., pp. 57, 184.
27 Bernhard Bockelbring and James Priest, Introduction to Sociocracy 3.0, (v2016-01-29), pp. 46—47 (accessed 2016-07-09).
28 Ibid., pp. 46, 118.
29 Ibid., p. 47.
30 ”An agreement is an agreed upon guideline, pattern, process or protocol designed to guide the flow of value.”  See Bernhard Bockelbring & James Priest, Sociocracy 3.0 Handbook (beta), (2016-09-14), p. 16 (accessed 2016-10-06).
31 Ibid. (accessed 2016-10-06).
32 ”A pattern is a template for successfully navigating a specific context.” Ibid., p. 13 (accessed 2016-10-06).
33 ”The patterns in S3 form a pattern language, i.e. while each pattern can be applied independently, patterns mutually reinforce each other, because they are all based on the same set of principles.” Ibid., p. 3 (accessed 2016-10-06).
34 Bernhard Bockelbring & James Priest, Sociocracy 3.0 – All Patterns in one Big Picture, (2016-06-22) (accessed 2016-10-06).

Related posts:
Holacracy vs. Sociocracy
Book Review: Sociocracy
Book Review: Holacracy
Language of rules & policies vs. agreements
Analysis of Sociocracy and Holacracy

Is Sociocracy an empty method?

The Sociocratic Circle-Organization Method (Sociocracy) is said to be ‘empty’ since the users are free to fill out their own details.1 I think this is true for many methods, including Holacracy and Sociocracy 3.0.2

Sociocracy is based on the following norms:3

  • SCN 500 The Sociocratic Method: Terms and definitions.
  • SCN 1001-0 The Sociocratic Method: Patterns for application, the production of equivalency in decision making.
  • SCN 1001-1 The Sociocratic Method: Patterns for application. Part 1. Production of dynamic organization.
  • SCN 1001-2 The Sociocratic Method: Patterns for application. Part 2. Leading dynamic organization.
  • SCN 1001-3 The Sociocratic Method: Patterns for application. Part 3. Anchoring of the method in legal terms.
  • SCN 1001-4 The Sociocratic Method: Patterns for application. Part 4. Mutual involvement.
  • SCN 1001-5 The Sociocratic Method: Patterns for application. Part 5. Production of ways of development.
  • SCN 1001-6 The Sociocratic Method: Patterns for application. Part 6. Production of Existence Ability Guarantee (EAG).

So, is Sociocracy empty? No, not really! Why would Sociocracy need to be ‘open’ to change,4 if it’s empty? And why are these norms needed in the first place? What are the assumptions behind these norms? I think this is related to the operating idea in Sociocracy, which is cybernetics.

Notes:
1 Global Sociocratic Center, Sociocratic Norm SCN 1001-0, (5th edition, 2010–2015), p. 2.
2 Sociocracy 3.0 builds on the Sociocratic Norms. See Sociocracy 3.0 Foundations Part 1.
3 Global Sociocratic Center, Sociocratic Norm SCN 1001-0, (5th edition, 2010–2015), p. 5.
4 Ibid., p. 2.

Related posts:
Sociocracy requires a new mindset
Scrum vs. Sociocracy
Sociocratic principles can be implemented in many ways
Sociocracy is a method, and still it isn’t
Implementing sociocracy without sociocracy
Sociocracy as practiced by the G/wi
Policies vs. agreements
Scaling sociocracy is all about the context
Unspoken sociocratic principles
Cultural dimensions of sociocracy
A prerequisite for sociocracy is a socios
Holacracy vs. sociocracy
The phenomenology of sociocracy
Are Holacracy and sociocracy Teal?
The big misconception in sociocracy

The big misconception in sociocracy

Georges Romme analyzes The Big Misconceptions Holding Holacracy Back in the 10 September 2015 issue of the Harvard Business Review.  Sharon Villines provides a summary and commentary on Romme’s article in the Misconceptions about Sociocracy at Sociocracy.info on 18 September 2015. Here are my own comments.

I agree with Georges Romme that Holacracy and sociocracy share ”key principles, with the main differences arising from jargon”, and have written about it here. I disagree with Romme that the ”real problem with holacracy isn’t the ideas behind it”. The key idea in both Holacracy and sociocracy is that ”management should be viewed as a mechanism — an ”operating system” in holacracy — for distributing power and leadership throughout the organization”. I find the cognitive model of human beings as autonomous rule-following entities inadequate, and have written about it here and here. This is perhaps the big misconception which has held sociocracy back since the 1970s? This might also be the stumbling block for Holacracy and sociocracy going forward? Time will tell!

Related posts:
Sociocracy requires a new mindset
Scrum vs. Sociocracy
Sociocratic principles can be implemented in many ways
Sociocracy is a method, and still it isn’t
Implementing sociocracy without sociocracy
Sociocracy as practiced by the G/wi
Policies vs. agreements
Scaling sociocracy is all about the context
Unspoken sociocratic principles
Cultural dimensions of sociocracy
A prerequisite for sociocracy is a socios
Holacracy vs. sociocracy
The phenomenology of sociocracy
Are Holacracy and sociocracy Teal?
Is Sociocracy an empty method?