In issue 90 of P2P News, I had already mentioned the management method of Sociocracy, whose workings are described in the P2p Encyclopedia. As one of the few self-conscious implementations of peer governance, it deserves our continued attention. After briefly describing the method just below, we introduce a recent controversy, dealing with the tension between the principle of selection for excellence, and the principle of equal participation.
“The sociocratic method is a way of giving form to our lives and society. The sociocratic method is an “empty” (or “generalized”) method. That is, it can be applied to every kind of organization. The sociocratic method starts from the concept that people are unequal, unique persons who should be equivalent by decision-making.
The Dutch businessman who developed sociocracy, Gerard Endenburg, has been striving to create a system that maintains equivalence” between participating members. He 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, substantial 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 regularly through another method. Thus, many decisions are not made by consent. Rather, with consent, persons or groups are given the authority to make independent decisions. Consent can also be used with non-human elements.
Circle Organization: The organization arranges for a decision making structure, built from mutually double-linked circles, in which consent governs. This decision-making structure includes all members of the organization. Each circle has its own aim, performs the three functions of directing, operating and measuring (feedback), and maintains its own memory system by means of integral education. A good way to evaluate how well a circle is functioning is to use 9-block charting. Every circle formulates its own vision, “mission statement” and aim/objective (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).
Double-Linking: Coupling a circle with the next higher circle is handled through a double link. That is, at least two persons, 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.”
I was recently informed that Brian Robertson, a successfull software entrepreneur (at Ternary Software) in Philadephia, has been using the sociocratic method, with some changes and adaptations, in the for-profit field. According to reports, it has been very successfull. Here is a description of the innovative nature of corporate governance at Ternary. In his own words:
(You can read a full and interesting interview here as well)
“1) Ternary is the first for-profit company in North America adopting a corporate governance and management structure which: (a) legally guarantees social responsibilities are equally paramount to investor responsibilities, (b) legally guarantees every worker in the company has a paramount voice in corporate governance and management at every level of scale throughout the organization, and (c) builds self-organization and dynamic steering (agility) directly into the legal structure and management processes of the organization.
2) Ternary’s structure and governance system integrates the distinction between for-profit and non-profit companies, and between public organizations and private enterprise. With Ternary’s model, all entities have both social and economic responsibilities, and the process of governance
happens everywhere throughout the system by everyone, at the level of scale they operate at, and not by a large separate “government” or by separate “management”.
3) Ternary’s structure and governance system blurs the line between separate organizations. As more organizations adopt a similar structure, they can easily intertwine into a fractal, chaordic, multi-entity organization. Once this network gets big enough, it has the potential to transcend what we currently think of as government with a new type of world-wide integrative power structure, all without any messy revolutions.”
Brian Robertson is also inspired by Ken Wilber’s integral theory, and in view of his adaptations, will soon launch the adapted peer governance system called ‘holacracy’. These adaptations are controversial in that they deviate in some senses from the traditional principles of sociocracy, as explained here by Sharon Villines of Sociocracy.info, one of the leading promotiers of sociocracy in the U.S.:
“Moving selection of leaders two levels up puts the selection out ofthe
reach of those who are being led — canceling any advantage of
sociocratic functioning — that those led should consent to the
choice. Promotions being put two levels up cancels out the sociocratic
principle that roles and responsibilities are assigned by consent by
the circle in which people function. This is one of the 4 fundamental
principles.
One circle could, of course, ask that a person from another circle be
promoted or transferred to join their circle in order to assume new
responsibilities but this is still a decision of peers, not those with
“higher centers of gravity.“