 | Chapter 6. Implementing Sociocracy | |
|---|---|---|
| ↢ | ↣ |
Table of Contents
How can we not only run an organization in line with our values, but also implement sociocracy in a way that is in line with our values? The one principle that stands out is the following: change cannot happen top-down only. A change in power structure has to have both elements of bottom-up and top-down. Ideally, both the top management and the staff would welcome a change toward shared power. Introducing shared power top-down – even done with the best intentions – uses power-over. That will not only lead to skepticism, it also starts off the idea of shared power on the wrong foot. We often work with people who are enthusiastic about sociocracy and who would love to wave the magic wand and get everyone on board, because, after all, it is for their good, right?
Introducing shared power brings along an inherent dilemma. If you are the one who is in power, by forcing shared power on all members of an organization you would violate one of the basic principles of sociocracy, consent! If you are not in power, you would have to ask someone who is in power to give up power. Implementing sociocracy requires an organization to be equally willing to step into power and to give up power on every level of the organization.
In a sociocratic mindset, we are all equals. We cannot start a sociocratic implementation coming from a place of righteousness because dividing up the world into “right” and “wrong” is not going to be effective. That means, the implementation of sociocracy starts even before we say the first word about sociocracy. It starts in our minds. Will we be able to hear people’s fear with an open heart and with willingness to work with their objections?
We have seen people burning for sociocracy and encountering nothing but resistance – and it seemed like the resistance came because they were so enthusiastic. One reason for that is that some people hear criticism as soon as we bring up the possibility of any new system. We can say “there is this cool way of decision making called consent”, and people hear “what you are doing now is wrong”. There is no point in going there. Other forms of governance are not wrong. Chances are they are less effective or less focused on equivalence. If we notice in ourselves the urge to prove someone wrong, it is probably time to back off and center ourselves. We cannot end “right and wrong” thinking with “right and wrong” thinking. In this spirit, here is what we have found helpful.
We aim to be transparent from day 1 on. No power games to implement sociocracy.
We try to work with people’s objections, just as if we were already a sociocratic organization. Every conversation about people’s concerns about sociocracy turns into a way for everyone to practice their listening skills and their ability to work with objections. We can ask questions: what are others afraid of? There are probably valid concerns like “how will we find the resources to train everyone” or “what is the board going to say?” How can we work with those objections and address them?
No one has to convince anyone to use all tools of sociocracy right away. One can try a next step or a small-scale experiment that seems safe enough for everyone.
Ideally, consent is formally introduced as the decision-making method as early as possible so there is certainty on how the organization makes decisions. Assume consent in your own mind even before it has been formally accepted. Assuming consent means you’ll have the mindset of doing-with others as equals instead to doing-to or doing-for.
Find companions as early as possible. For our training, we always encourage people to bring a second person, for the simple reason that this will make it easier for the organization to hear the input. A second person will be able to complement the information shared, and the journey will be shared from the beginning.
A second person in a training (or any kind of learning journey) has the same effect as a double-link: information flows better, and power dynamics are lessened.
Remember not to let the organization fall into camps. We want to overcome the distinction between those in power and those without. Everyone wants to have a say in matters that concern them. Everyone wants to be able to contribute to what is important to them. Everyone wants to be more connected to their co-workers. This is true both for workers and managers. This is not something we have to “sell”. We assume that everyone carries that longing already because it comes from universal needs. In our experience, we all agree that change is needed. However, not all of us have hope that positive change can be done. More and more people are ready to do things differently. We start from the assumption that we already have shared interests. We celebrate when we all step into our power together.
Change does not come easily. Predictability, ease and comfort are universal human needs. For some of us, at times, the dream of something better is enough of a motivator. For some of us, at times, we need to feel pain to a breaking point before we are willing to risk change. When one person tells you about sociocracy, you might think, “oh, that is interesting”, and promptly forget it. When the third person from different parts of your life tell you about sociocracy, you might think, “hmm, maybe there is something here I should pay attention to”. At some point, each of us opens to change. When the window opens, be there. Don’t break the window.