There were most often 30+ members in meetings, even when there were many more members in the organization. Since members valued each other’s contributions equally, they would not have considered forming smaller circles. People wanted to be together. Most of the groups used rounds as the best way to give everyone time to speak. If someone dominated, someone else would ask them not to. Anyone might do this, not necessarily the facilitator.
These groups varied in their objectives. One was starting and operating a cooperative school. Another a food coop. There were faculty groups, church groups, women’s consciousness-raising groups. Women’s rights organizations including NOW and others whose names I’ve forgotten. More than one cohousing community.
Even when groups were required to use Parliamentary Procedure, as various incorporated groups were, they often used the first decision-making option — the discussion continued until the chair could declare a proposal passed by acclamation, or “no objections.” They also created ways to weight the votes, giving the group most affected by a decision half the votes so no one could impose a decision on a minority.
Inclusiveness
In these groups, inclusiveness was and is a pervasive value. Because inclusiveness in everyday life requires consensus, consensus becomes a practice, not just in formal decision-making process restricted to meetings.
For organizations accustomed to consensus decision-making, what sociocracy brings to governance is a governance structure that is based on the consensus decision-making process. It uses a structured consensus, or delegated overlapping consensus. Consent of Circle A can be maintained in Circle B without all the members of Circle A participating because Circle A and Circle B overlap. Equally important is that the ways in which they overlap have the consent of both circles.
Representatives in democratic governance systems are normally elected by majority vote which means only a majority of those voting may support them, and far fewer of those they represent who didn’t bother to vote. Representatives elected by consent have been elected because they are trusted to speak for everyone. Sociocracy allows an organization to grow in an organized way, forming specialized units and still maintaining inclusiveness.
Consensus is a decision-making process but sociocracy is a governance method. Few of the groups that used consensus in the 1970s and 80s were able to grow beyond 50 or so members and still be united or effective without sacrificing inclusiveness. There was no way to extend consensus decision-making to very large groups or groups performing multiple or complex tasks. Specialization was impossible because there was no way to be one organization with many heads. They inevitably disbanded, broke into smaller groups, or adopted the conventional board of governing decision-makers who could value inclusiveness but not practice it.
Sociocracy is a method of governance that can ensure inclusiveness, effectiveness, and harmony even in large corporations.
“Behavior is determined by the prevailing form of decision-making.” Gerard Endenburg
Related articles
- Consent & Responsibility (adeeperdemocracy.org)
- Lost Valley Intentional Community, Eugene, Oregon (adeeperdemocracy.org)
- Tyranny of the Majority? Occupy Seattle (losthighwaytimes.com)
{ 0 comments }
