Another take on the participatory society...


----- Forwarded by John Rogers/Staff/UWCN on 26/11/2004 17:01 -----

Ted Millich
<ted@...> To:
wdn-co-learners@...
cc:
26/11/2004 16:39 Subject: [WDN co-learners]
Sociocracy
Please respond to
wdn-co-learners






Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Get a Holy Bible for FREE!
http://click.topica.com/caacTFub1dpaBbOcSFua/PermissionData
-------------------------------------------------------------------


Here is an article I wrote that is condensed from my website (there is a
link
near the end of the article) about a form of governance called Sociocracy.

ted


SOCIOCRACY

(sO"sE-ok'ru-sE) , ?n. A theoretical system of government in which the
interests
of all members of society are served equally.
Here are two quotes from Gerard Endenburg, one of the developers of
Sociocracy:

"More than guaranteeing the familiar tolerant attitude to minorities and
individuals who deviate from the norm, we must systematically guarantee
optimum
tolerance for each individual and group when establishes rules for
decision-making. "
"On the road which we have taken as organizing beings, sociocracy follows
on
from democracy."
Sometimes it seems like democracy is just an illusion that the powerful use
to
fool people into thinking that they have self-determination.
Sociocracy was developed specifically to address human needs. It resembles
and
is specifically designed to mimic living organisms. In a mechanical model
a
mechanic runs a machine. This is analogous to managers running their
employees.
Living organisms run themselves. Not only does sociocracy address human
needs,
but it allows for the most responsive organization and uses a minimum
number of
levels of hierarchy.
Many of our large-scale problems are systemic. Especially relating to our
decision-making methods. A huge source of our trouble in this world is
that we
unwittingly give up our power to consent in decisions that affect us.
THE DEVELOPMENT OF SOCIOCRACY

Sociocracy originated in the Netherlands. Originally envisioned in 1945 by
Kees
Boeke, a Dutch educator and pacifist, as a way to adapt Quaker egalitarian
principles to secular organizations, sociocracy allows us to give and
receive
effective leadership while remaining peers. Together with his English wife
Beatrice Cadbury, who was also a teacher, Boeke introduced a method for
teachers, pupils and their parents to work together for the best possible
result. Gerard Endenburg, was one of the pupils in this "Workplace
Children's
Community", as the Boeke's school was called.
After World War II, Gerard Endenburg trained as an electrical engineer and
concentrated on the then new science of cybernetics (the science of
steering and
control). He worked briefly for Phillips Electronics, designing a flat
speaker
that is still used in small electronic equipment today. Then his father
challenged him to manage a small, failing business he had purchased. In
less
than a year Gerard had made the business profitable and merged it with his
father's company. In the late 1960s Gerard's father retired and Gerard
became
manager of Endenburg Electrotechniek, Inc., with the mandate run it both as
a
profitable business and as a real time laboratory for testing innovative
management ideas. Sociocracy is a product of that "laboratory."
He developed the Sociocratic Method into a body of well tested principles
which
is now used in more than a hundred different organizations: schools,
businesses,
various institutions, a local police department, a police academy and a
number
of businesses in the USA, Canada, Italy, Switzerland and Brazil. I learned
the
method from John Buck who brought the idea to the U.S. and taught some of
us at
Twin Oaks Community in Central Virginia how to use it.
WHAT SOCIOCRACY IS
Sociocracy is rule of an organization by the "socii," that is, people who
regularly interact with each other and have a common aim. (The prefix
socio-
comes from "socius," the Latin term for companion or colleague.) Each
socius has
a voice that cannot be ignored in the managing of the organization. In
contrast,
democracy is rule by the "demos," that is, a collection of people who may
or may
not know each other and have only general aims in common -- such as the
running
of a country. An autocracy is rule by an "auto" or single person. The
typical
business in the U.S. is an autocracy (Can the U.S. still claim to be a
democracy?). The majority of the "demos" can ignore the minority of the
"demos"
as they make their decisions. An "auto" can choose to ignore the rest of
the
organization.
Sociocracy can be regarded as a fractal structure. That is why, once the
basics
are understood, the procedures at the highest level are as clear as the
procedures at the grassroots level. It also doesn't require very many
levels to
include a great number of people. For a society, organized along
sociocratic
lines, this would take away a lot of the obscurity surrounding democratic
politics. Everything is open to discussion ? limits of an executive's
power,
policy decisions, personnel decisions, investment policy, profit
distribution,
or all rules. It can be adapted to any organization. It doesn't replace the

organization's structure, but is in addition to it. The structures used in
decision-making give everyone a voice and keep the process on track.
HOW SOCIOCRACY WORKS
The sociocratic method can be applied to every kind of organization. It
starts
from the concept that people are unequal, unique persons who should be
equivalent in decision-making.
Gerard Endenburg has come up with these FOUR MAIN PRINCIPLES used to form a

sociocratic organization:
Governance by Consent
Circle Organization
Double Linking and
Elections by Consent.
Governance by Consent
The consent principle says that a decision can only be made when none of
the
circle members present has a reasoned and substantial ("paramount" in the
lingo
I learned) objection to making the decision.
The consent principle is different than "consensus" and "veto." With
consensus
the participants must be "for" the decision. With consent decision-making
they
must be not against. With consensus a veto blocks the decision without an
argument. With consent decision-making, opposition must always be supported
with
an argument.
Every decision doesn't require consent, but consent must exist concerning
an
agreement to make decisions through another method. Thus, many decisions
are not
made by consent. Rather, with consent, persons or groups can be given the
authority to make independent decisions.
When people start learning about Sociocracy their first questions usually
are,
"can people with vastly differing viewpoints actually make decisions this
way
without getting bogged down?" and, "How do people decide what a reasoned
and
substantial objection is?"
The answer to the first question is an unequivocal yes. When you amend a
proposal based on everyone's input, you can come up with something that no
one
has an objection to. The only way to really understand, of course, is to
gain
experience with this method.
The members of the circle decide if an objection fits the criteria or not.

Usually the matter can be cleared up by the facilitator asking how the
objector
would amend the proposal.
Endenburg: "The consent principle employs chaos to come to clarity on
policy
directions that people will accept in their particular circumstances, but
it
makes it possible to resist sometimes sudden and arbitrary actions by power

holders and systemic coercion by majority parties or other voting blocks."
I'm impressed at how well this method balances the needs of the individual
with
the needs of the group.
Circle Organization
Every circle formulates its own vision, "mission statement," and
aim/objective
(VMA), which must fit in with the vision, mission and aim of the
organization as
a whole and with the vision, mission and aim of all the other circles in
the
organization.
Each circle performs the three functions of directing, operating and
measuring
(feedback), and maintains its own memory system by means of integral
education.

Double-Linking
Coupling a circle with the next higher circle is handled through a double
link.
That is, at least two persons, (usually) the supervisor of the circle and
at
least one representative of the circle, belong to the next higher circle.
Sociocratic Elections
Choosing people for functions and/or responsibilities is done by consent
after
an open discussion. The discussion is very important because it uncovers
pertinent information about the members of the circle.
Sociocratic elections are like nothing I've ever experienced before.
Everyone
votes on paper first putting their own name on it as well. Then, after
collection, the facilitator says, "Ted, you voted for Mabel. Why?" A reason
is
always given. "Because she already seems to understand this stuff and I
think
she'd present the material clearly." You end up saying nice stuff about
each
other! People feel good and get positive feedback. The facilitator puts the

votes in piles for each person and asks if anyone wants to change their
vote.
Usually people do. If there's not a clear majority for someone, the
facilitator
can choose any of the ones most voted for (or even not if they think they
can
get a 'no objection') and go for a 'no objection' round. The candidate
asked
about is asked last. Elections are interesting and fun, but most
importantly
nobody feels like they lost!
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.
Sociocratic organizations are connected to outside organizations by
external
double links.
The top circle has outside "experts" as members. These experts sometimes
come
from other circles within the organization.
Sociocracy is a form of governance. It models an organization that can
function
and function well with the least levels of hierarchy possible. It cannot
be
owned because ownership indicates who has the ultimate decision-making
power.
That power is shared, thus ownership is shared.
Consensus and Consent
Consensus is a good idea, but one of the people who laid sociocracy on me
has
been a Quaker for many decades and is quite familiar with consensus and she

believes that consent works more efficiently, at least, for her group, in
their
situation. She is also part of an ecovillage that struggled along with
consensus
for three years and had a lot of problems. Here is a quote from their
website:
"Initially the group used consensus to make their decisions. This proved
inefficient and exhausting and led to serious rifts. Introducing sociocracy
was
a relief. The group became more efficient and subsequently has been able to
make
many difficult decisions in harmony with one another." This may not be the
case
for every group that uses consensus. The size of the group, their
backgrounds,
and their aims could make consensus a more appropriate choice.
Nonviolence
This quote comes from the translation of a speech given by Gerard Endenburg

called 'Knowledge, Power, and Power Over:'
"Uncontrollable "power over" (or "dominance") interests me because it is
akin to
the concept of negation. Negating or ignoring someone's existence is the
ultimate form of violence."
What he tells in the rest of his speech is that now, in our customary
systems,
since people's desires and needs are routinely ignored, we have adapted by
becoming defensive and aggressive, knowing that someone else has control
over
the decisions that affect our lives. This shows that violence is systemic
in our
present systems of governance.
Many people associate Democracy with majority vote, which, as we can see,
ignores the desires of the minority. There are other problems with it, of
course, including the cause of voter apathy - none of the candidates
represent
the voter, which could mean that majority vote ignores the disires of the
majority, too!
Organopomorphic
Sociocracy resembles organic systems ? it uses the wisdom of nature.
In their pamphlet Sustainability Tom Heuerman, Ph.D. and Diane Olson, Ph.D.

write:
"Fritjof Capra wrote that the wisdom of nature is sustainability. Ecologies
and
organizations are living systems and share the same principles of
organization."
"In most organizations these dynamics are driven underground by efforts to
control." "Both [ecologies and organizations] are networks, their histories

determine their structures, and they are intelligent and capable of
learning.
Ecological literacy means using the principles of organization of
ecosystems (a
community of organisms and their physical environment interacting as an
ecological unit) to create sustainable human communities. We can learn much
from
nature about sustainability."
Here is a list of qualities of organic systems.
1. Cooperative mutual dependence (networks)
2. Any holon (a whole made of it's own parts, yet itself part of a larger
whole)
is never completely independent (heirarchy)
3. Changes constantly
4. Expresses Diversity
5. Cannot be controlled and dominated
6. Self-maintaining and self-renewing (Autopoietic)
Capra discussed four principles of sustainability:
1. Interdependence
2. The cyclical nature of ecologies
3. Partnership - the tendency to associate, establish links, live inside
one
another, and cooperate
4. Flexibility and diversity
Interdependence, Partnership, and Cooperative Mutual Dependence
Competition is a form of violence. It seeks to negate the efforts of
others.
Some people think that Darwin's 'Survival of the Fittest' means that
competition
is the way everything in the world operates. If we look at nature, though,
we
find that it is much more cooperation than that. Ecosystems evolve to
dance/flow/proceed in balance. If one part of an ecosystem disappears it
severely directly affects other parts and severely indirectly affects all
parts.

Cooperation is the rule rather than the exception within most businesses
today.
Since a sociocratic organization's purpose is to serve community and
participants in the company, competition outside the organization is also
reduced, which, of course, isn't the rule today at all. In fact,
sociocratic
organizations link up with other sociocratic organizations and become
reliant on
each other rather.
People, like me, who don't like centralization still sometimes think in
terms of
a world government. There would be no boundaries or separations. This
doesn't
mean it's controlled by one power center. It could be achieved with
cooperative
networks.
Any holon is never completely independent
A sociocratic organization is always connected to other sociocratic
organizations. Ideally there would be a lot of them. If there were, a
community
like mine, if it were, would be connected to a top circle of other similar
communities. Then there would be a circle of community top circles. This
would
go on, hopefully indefinitely.
Schools are already structured somewhat this way already. A student is not
independent from their class, the class from the school, the school from
the
district, the district from the state, etc.
The cyclical nature of ecologies
Capra refers to feedback loops which in nature may be of elements and
nutrients,
etc. In sociocracy the circle process is a closed loop that functions
cyclically. Measurement is an important aspect of evaluating the circle
process
and adjusting past decisions (this from cybernetics).
Diversity
I have come to the conclusion that with Consent, the more people that make
a
decision, the better the decision will be. I've seen how people with vastly

different ideas can craft a decision that is win-win for everybody. I think
a
group makes better decisions when 10 people are present than when 5 people
are
present.
The more people involved in a decision, the more checks and balances there
are
that will bring the proposal closer to heeding what the
little-angel-on-our-shoulder says. If there is only one person making the
decision, there is too much temptation from the
little-devil-on-our-shoulder,
and as Gerard wrote, people certainly can be "uncaring, idle, and
unreliable
egotists. "
Cannot be controlled and dominated
I do believe that sociocracy is structured so that no one person or even
block,
clique, or posse can dominate the decisions. People I know say that any
system
can be abused and used so I guess it depends somewhat on the people and the

circumstances.
Self-maintaining and Self-renewing and Changes constantly
Elisabet Satouris calls this Autopoiesis (pronounced like 'ah doe poe ee
sis').
I suppose this is another way to say that it is sustainable. One rule of
sociocracy that was created to maintain equivalence is 'Any decision can be

revisited at any time.' A special meeting may be called. This applies to
elections as well. This is the self-correction that occurs when ignoring
becomes
a threat.
This quality is probably not so uncommon for any organization, but
sociocracy's
structure allows for the quickest degree of adaptability, which will make a

sociocratic organization better at maintaining and renewing itself.
Are Corporations Slaves?
John Buck, who found out about sociocracy in the Netherlands, studied it,
and
brought the idea here to North America, has an analogy for you to think
about. A
corporation is a legal person. If that corporation is owned, then that
'legal
person' is owned and is a slave. If the owners make the decisions that
affect
everyone in the corporation, then we see here that there is a master/slave
relationship.
In a sociocratic organization a person must be included in a decision that
affects them. They also get total veto power - as do all members of the
decision-making body (circles in sociocratic parlance).
In other words, if the owners make a decision that affects an employee,
then the
employee is due a say in the decision. The owners would also be included in
any
decision that affects them, but they wouldn't make the decision
exclusively. In
a non-sociocratic organization the owners could decide to move a
manufacturing
plant to Mexico. In a sociocratic organization, that couldn't happen unless

every single employee who is affected by the potential move doesn't object
to it
happening. Is this the difference between a slave and a free person?
It brings up an interesting thought. If the organization cannot just be
told
what to do by owners or a separate management class, then it cannot really
be
"owned."
It exists to serve community and participants in the company.
A participant is everyone who wishes to share in the interest of the
company.
There can be stockholders, there can be investors, but if they sell their
interest in the organization, the new owners cannot change anything without
the
consent of every employee who is affected by the changes. Hostile takeovers
and
buyouts become meaningless.
UNIONS
With Sociocracy there would be no need for a union to exist because there
would
be no need to coerce management.
Anarchy
I believe that Sociocracy comes closest to guaranteeing the anarchic ideal
of
self-determination.
I created a website at the Twin Oaks Community website. I have links to the

Dutch and other sites:
http://www.twinoaks.org/clubs/sociocracy/index.html
Endenburg has two very dry books: Sociocracy: The organization of
decision-making, and Sociocracy As Social Design






Ted Millich
ted@...

------------------------------------------------------------
See the latest Yo-Yo's @ TheYoStore.com
Click-> http://www.TheYoStore.com

--
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Claim your fully stuffed Christmas Stocking now
http://click.topica.com/caacQ4Sb1dpaBbOcSFuf/PermissionData
-------------------------------------------------------------------

--^----------------------------------------------------------------
This email was sent to: John.Rogers@...

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?b1dpaB.bOcSFu.Sm9obi5S
Or send an email to: wdn-co-learners-unsubscribe@...

For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit:
http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER
--^----------------------------------------------------------------