DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FUNDAY
HTML https://funday.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Off Topic
*****************************************************
#Post#: 437--------------------------------------------------
IDM Examples #2
By: Admin Date: May 22, 2022, 8:03 am
---------------------------------------------------------
6 More Testimonials
*** SOCIOCRACY TESTIMONIAL #8
<IDM is a simplified form of scientifically developed consensus,
referred to below as Sociocracy - IDM is the best hope for world
peace, justice and prosperity>
www.awakeningsanctuary.org/images/The%20CERES%20Project.pdf
.
The Vision:
We visualize a simple model represented by a very ancient
symbol, the Seed of Life. In a visual culture, symbols embody a
great deal of information in a very efficient way. This
particular symbol, comprised of seven intersecting circles, is
the essence of the Flower of Life, nineteen intersecting circles
encompassed by two concentric rings.
.
<Sociocratic Circles?>
... The Flower of Life represents the unity of all life and
consciousness within the universe. It has been found in temples
in Japan, Egypt, and India, and can be seen in design patterns
from cultures throughout the world. The Seed of Life, the
essence of the Flower of Life, is a particularly potent symbol
for our community model.
.
Surrounding and enclosing our seven sacred hoops are two
concentric, protective rings, for a seed is in need of
protection. The outer ring represents LOVE, the source of all
creation, and the inner ring, GRATITUDE for this source and for
our ability to co-create a community both nurturing and
sustainable. It is within the two outer rings of Love and
Gratitude that the seven basic precepts of the Ceres Sustainable
Community Model exist.
.
... COMMUNITY QUALITIES
Underlying the circle of life community model are some basic
community qualities:
Compassion, kindness, integrity, inclusiveness, trust, freedom
with responsibility, respect for the interrelatedness of all
life, heartfulness and the sacredness of all creation.
As we manifest these qualities, the following may be realized:
We will acknowledge the rights of others.
We will respect and hold sacred all life.
We will treat others as we would like to be treated.
We will be honest and live in integrity.
We will practice being spirits walking gently on this sacred
planet.
We will be self-responsible for our thoughts, words and actions.
We will reach out in service to others.
We will join each other as whole persons creating diverse,
creative and
thriving communities.
"As we come into our wholeness all that truly exists between
souls is love."
- Gary Zukov
.
-------------
.
*** SOCIOCRACY TESTIMONIAL #9
ming.tv/flemming2.php/__show_article/_a000010-000138.htm
.
Ming the Mechanic: Sociocracy
The NewsLog of Flemming Funch
Sociocracy 2002-07-10 18:00
2 comments
by Flemming Funch
.
I'm just reading in a new member site about Sociocracy. It is
quite similar to what my vision would be of how groups of people
ought to organize and make decisions. The main 4 principles are:
Governance by Consent
Circle Organization
Double Linking
Elections by Consent
.
The "Governance by Consent" thing is almost the same as what I'm
used to calling "Consensus". But in the text it is contrasted
with Consensus. Which I can understand, because for many people
"Consensus" means that everybody agrees. Whereas the Consent
principle is more that everybody can live with it and don't have
any specific and substantial objection.
[Ming the Mechanic]
.
Category: Patterns
2 comments
18 Jul 2002 @ 11:00 by ted : soci. elections are unique and
interesting.
**Sociocratic elections are like nothing I've ever experienced
before. **Ted here. It's my website sited above. During my first
workshop weekend we did an election. It had to be something real
so we chose some<one> to give a review in the evening. Everyone
votes on paper first putting their own name on it as well. 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!
.
21 Jul 2002 @ 07:55 by ming : sociocratic elections
That's interesting. I'd like to try that sometime. I wonder how
well **it might work online, or whether it depends on in-person
facilitation.
.
----------------
.
*** SOCIOCRACY TESTIMONIAL #10
groups.yahoo.com/group/extremeprogramming/message/111245
.
From: "Brian Robertson" <brian@...>
Date: Sun Aug 28, 2005 6:10 pm
Subject: Sociocracy brian65535
.
Hi Folks,
.
The discussion on Sociocracy and its "consent" system was
recently brought to my attention, and I may be able to offer
some useful input from our actual experiences with the system.
.
A bit of background: I'm with Ternary Software; we are an
XP-based software development firm, and we've used Sociocracy
for awhile now throughout our organization. I have significant
knowledge and practical experience with the model as a result,
and we are also working closely with a Sociocratic consultant
trained in Holland, where many companies now use the system (so
many in fact that they've recently added national legislat<ion>
to exempt Sociocratic organizations from employment laws that no
longer make sense in a Sociocratic context).
.
...On Consent vs. Consensus:
.
... Consent isn't about "votes" at all per se. There are no
votes, and people do not "vote". People do say whether they know
of a reason why the proposed decision is outside the limits of
tolerance of any aspect of the system. This isn't at all the
same as consensus-with-veto, either in theory or in practice,
although it sounds similar at first. That process also has two
possible reactions that sound similar, but both are about
personal support and/or opinion about the decision, whereas
neither of the two options in consent is about personal support
or opinion (more on this later).
.
By the book definition, consent is a process of decision making
whereby decisions are made only when no one involved knows of a
reasoned argument against the decision.
.
... If a proposed decision requires something that is outside of
the limits of tolerance of any aspect of the system, then there
is a reasoned argument
against it. A function will not operate properly if arguments
are passed in that are outside of its limits of tolerance, and a
whole system will not operate properly if any of its functions
do not. For example, in a boiler-based heating system, the
boiler has a limit: if the water actually boils, the unit will
cease to function, and may explode. That is a reasoned argument
against allowing the water to boil. This is a valid argument for
decision-making because it's about something that won't work
well, and not because the boiler "wants" to keep the water below
boiling
.
... Personal support ... is a result of the consent
decision-making process, even though it isn't actually
considered as part of the decision-making process itself. When
the process is truly followed, all decisions I've seen have had
the support they needed at the least, and usually the full
support of everyone, even those who were uneasy about the issue
at first. My experience has been that consent results in more
support for decisions than any other decision-making process
I've used.
.
Likewise, consent is not about trust, and it relies upon trust
less than any other decision-making process I've run into (it's
quite unique in this regard). Again, trust is an output of the
process, not a required input. Consent decision-making is among
the most powerful means I've seen for actually building the
trust teams need; in fact, it is often brought into extremely
dysfunctional companies specifically to re-establish and build
trust, and several companies in Holland have seen amazing
results in this regard.
.
Support and trust are both very personal, and consent decision
making has an impersonal quality to it; it's about reaching
decisions that do not fall outside the limits of tolerance of
the many aspects of a complex system. I've been quite amazed at
how much personal trust and support such an impersonal process
builds, largely I think by shifting the focus from the personal
to the more practical.
.
On Agile Decision Making:
.
Agile software development places value on "responding to
change" over "following a plan", through focus on iterations,
incremental design, continual improvement, and refactoring. My
experience with Agile development has taught me that, when it's
practical to do these things (and it usually is), you'll usually
get better results than trying to anticipate everything and get
the "perfect" design up-front. Likewise, Sociocracy uses the
same <approach> [[value]] when crafting decisions and policies
and such. If it's practical to design decisions, plans, and
policies incrementally (and it usually is), then that will be
much more effective than agonizing over the "perfect" decision
up-front.
.
So, built in to the idea of Consent is that any decision can be
revisited at any time (consent for anything may be withdrawn
simply by voicing a reasoned argument at any regular or
specially-called meeting of the relevant Circle). For consent to
work, there needs to be a value placed on making reasonably fast
decisions for most (but not all) issues just based on the facts
at hand, without too much speculation and anticipation, and then
adapting when new information and understanding presents itself
- much like incremental design improvement on an XP project.
.
I've found it becomes quite easy to say "Yeah, let's try that!",
knowing that we're doing Agile decision-making, and that we'll
incrementally improve decisions, policies, and plans as we go,
whenever new understanding is available. Yet I am also
understandably hesitant to make the same "let's try it"
commitment in a traditional organization where non-agile
decision-making is the norm - if you can't adapt as you go for
whatever reason, getting the right decision up-front becomes
more critical.
.
When I used to design and code software, I had a comparable
feeling. On a non-agile development team, I was much more
hesitant to accept (or support) a design I wasn't totally sure
about, since I knew it was a big commitment. On an agile team,
it became comfortable - preferable even - to support a
colleague's design, even if I had gut feel concerns I couldn't
yet articulate, so that we could get some more real data and
feedback. That would typically *help* me uncover and articulate
the reasons for my gut feel, and then we could all adapt and end
up with a better design and a better codebase as a result. So it
is with Sociocracy and consent as well, and that changes both
the nature of decision making and people's emotional reactions
(e.g. "support") toward decisions.
.
--------------------
.
*** SOCIOCRACY TESTIMONIAL #11
On "Sabotage" and "Politics"
.
When I see "sabotage", "politics", and other seemingly
dysfunctional behavior, I typically ask myself why the behavior
makes sense - what purpose it's serving for the individual and
for the team. Often I find that seemingly dysfunctional behavior
is actually an attempt to achieve something healthy - often it's
a way of achieving influence when there is no other readily
apparent or effective means of doing so. It's not that
Sociocracy directly solves problems of sabotage and politics -
it just helps an organization "outgrow" the need for such things
in the first place.
.
I read somewhere that "behavior that is healthy in a
pathological environment becomes pathological in a healthy
environment" (I don't recall the source unfortunately).
<majority rule is unhealthy> Sociocracy has been instrumental
in our ability to create a healthy environment where everyone
has an explicit and effective means of influencing *any*
decision in the company at any time. I have not seen sabotage,
politics, and similar behaviors since we rolled out Sociocracy,
probably because they are no longer useful.
.
On Results
.
Studies from Holland have purported finding a major productivity
and loyalty boost when companies adopt Sociocracy, and from our
experiences, I believe it. Sociocracy has helped us build
unprecedented levels of trust, buy-in, support, emotional
commitment, "humane" and socially responsible business
practices, and all of that other "feel-good" stuff. And it's
done this with a system that has also proven to be highly
practical, effective, and efficient from traditional measures of
economic and business results - more so than we had ever
imagined up front. By traditional business metrics, our company
overall and our project teams specifically are doing amazingly
well, in addition to the other more human benefits of the
system.
.
Following are two short stories from our experience with
Sociocracy:
.
- Recently, one of our programmers designed a change to our
salary system. He saw that some of our junior folks seemed to be
feeling undue pain from their salary level, investigated
further, and came up with a better idea. He knew exactly how to
present his proposed change for consideration, and the
appropriate Circle saw that this design addressed both their
initial concerns and the new concern he discovered. The change
was passed, and our junior folks are now paid more. Perhaps more
interestingly, the new system resulted in a lower salary for the
more senior programmer who presented it, and he knew it would,
yet he presented it happily. He felt it was best for everyone,
including himself from a bigger-picture perspective (if it
improves our business results, he will share in that gain via
our profit sharing system, and if it improves the lives of those
around him, he will enjoy a higher quality of life and more
success on his project teams).
.
- Our primary business line is implementing projects for other
companies, and we recently addressed the topic of how we would
decide which projects to accept from potential clients. I
initially proposed that our sales team be granted the authority
to make those decisions. One of our programmers objected, saying
it wouldn't work for the programming teams if they were given
assignments that would cause significant pain (e.g. lots of
offsite work) or were outside their expertise enough that they
couldn't succeed. The programmer proposed we first bring
potential projects back to the Circle for consent, before
committing to clients. Our sales guy now objected, out of
concern that we might lose needed business if our clients saw
too much "bureaucracy" and delay in the sales process. Given the
two explicit and reasoned arguments, the facilitator was able to
quite easily through out a proposal that met both concerns: That
our sales team would be authorized to accept or decline projects
on their own within the limits that the few potential projects
we see that are either significantly different than our usual
mold or that the sales team expected to be significantly painful
would first need consent of the broader Circle.
This resolved both arguments, and quickly passed consent.
For More Information
.
I have a blog with a few posts about Sociocracy and our
experiences with it, available at
HTML http://enlightenedbusiness.blogspot.com
. The main page only
shows a few recent posts; others are listed down the right-hand
side - there are only a dozen or so posts in total, so it's not
much to sift through. I also have an article I was given
permission to share with interested individuals (but not to post
publicly, so you'll have to e-mail me if interested).
.
I was invited to speak about Sociocracy at the Agile 2005
conference's Executive Summit last month, and there was enough
interest there that I went ahead and submitted several sessions
on Sociocracy to a number of software conferences coming up next
year. Keep an eye out for them if you're interested.
.
I will be speaking (on another topic) at SD Best Practices
coming up in Boston in September. If anyone is interested in
getting together and learning about or discussing Sociocracy
there, drop me a line. If enough folks are interested, I'll ask
the conference organizers to consider giving us a room for it.
.
Thanks again and best of luck!
.
- Brian Robertson
Ternary Software, Inc.
President & CEO
www.ternarysoftware.com
Blog: www.enlightenedbusiness.blogspot.com
.
---------
.
*** SOCIOCRACY TESTIMONIAL #12
groups.yahoo.com/group/extremeprogramming/message/111245
.
From: Nancy Van Schooenderwoert <vanschoo@...>
Date: Mon Aug 29, 2005 12:31 am
Subject: Re: [XP] Sociocracy nancyvanscho...
Hi, Brian!
Thanks for taking the time to write this excellent description.
Now I think I get it.
.
When trying to move forward with my software team (seeking
consensus) I always found it easier when I'd point out that we
can just try out one or the other idea, and then revisit the
discussion next week, or next iteration, whatever. I could sense
everyone relaxing a bit, and feeling that it's ok to experiment.
I see that Sociocracy captures that nicely. This reminds me of
the Lean Software principle of small chunks of work flowing
faster through a system. In this case, a new idea can flow
faster (i.e. be tried and ok'd or rejected) if there's not a big
irreversible commitment that has to be made early.
.
I really like the notion of allowing an idea unless there is a
fact-based reason not to. It helps get past simple stubbornness,
and biases. This is a valuable improvement to what I understand
of consensus decision making. I really would like to see more of
this discussion at software conferences. People issues are the
toughest ones on most teams - I can see how this method is able
to actually build trust, rather than requiring it as an input.
.
I'm reminded of a quote from Brad Appleton that I've seen here
on the list "First you build trust." And now you're showing us a
clear mechanism for doing that. Excellent! ...
.
From: "Brian Robertson" <brian@...>
Date: Mon Aug 29, 2005 1:48 am
Subject: RE: [XP] Sociocracy brian65535
.
.
On Monday, August 29, 2005 at 1:32 AM, Nancy Van Schooenderwoert
wrote:
>
> I'm reminded of a quote from Brad Appleton that I've seen >
here on the list "First you build trust." And now you're >
showing us a clear mechanism for doing that. Excellent!
.
A great thought, and Sociocracy is definitely a concrete tool
that builds trust in a team (and, even cooler, throughout an
entire organization). Our teams have found it to be a beautiful
complement to XP, and it provides a specific mechanism for
bringing some of the ideas behind XP throughout an organization,
beyond just the software development teams.
.
-----------------
.
*** SOCIOCRACY TESTIMONIAL #13
www.alliance21.org/2003/article.php3?id_article=263
.
Proposal for a World Parliament for the Twenty-first Century
(October 2002 - October 2003)
.
... 1. Values and Principles for a World Parliament
.
Promote personal maturity and sovereignty. “Parliamentary”
democracy has become demagogy, because parliamentary majorities
control the executive branch. We all have to make a cultural
leap to see ourselves as Sovereign Citizens. Human beings must
be rigorously educated from childhood to think of the world with
rights and a prince’s responsibilities, rights and duties shared
with all other Citizens.
.
Develop self-governance. That is to say, base global governance
on the voluntary coordination of behavior for the benefit of
all, on decision making entrusted to those who are most affected
by the decisions. Modern technology makes this possible. The
World Parliament should try to influence governments with the
help of a well-informed public opinion.
.
Organize ourselves through self-regulation and continuous
adjustment. Implement tools for self-criticism for all the
elements of the organization of global governance and of the
World Parliament. We will thus be able to design improved
versions of our own societies, and to avoid that the best of our
previous successes do not become future obstacles through
excessive conservatism.
.
Institute peace, cooperation, and generosity among international
actors. The obvious prerequisite to democracy is cooperation.
The people who expect to bring about such democracy must
obviously first be in a state of cooperation with each other
before they can agree to design appropriate government
institutions. War must be declared illegal.
.
Make progress in the means for transparency. For every citizen
to remain informed on everything taking place at the World
Parliament. Transparency means that a government body is open at
all times to inspection during its debates. Transparency is not
easy to implement because it runs up against fundamental
self-protective human reflexes when facing the possible danger
of being stabbed in the back.
.
Move toward representation by tasks. In countries that claim to
be democratic today, political parties announce a complete
program. On the other hand, "communities of ideas" are formed
around a single aspiration, for example “food for everyone" or
to "put an end to racism," giving the elected officials of these
communities a program that is clear to everybody.
.
Uphold the principle of consistency. Consistency is
indispensable to prevent contradictory laws to be voted in,
canceling the Parliament’s credibility. It cannot support the
criminal behavior of one state and condemn another for the same
behavior...
.
2. The Architecture of Global Governance
.
Combine centralized and decentralized approaches.
.
... A Council of Wise Thinkers.
.
... An international Peace force. Its first mission is to
intervene peacefully "as soon as the first signs of tensions
appear," before conflicts break out. It will exercise a "right
of peaceful intervention" to operate at the very beginning of a
conflict.
.
Give NGOs a democratic legitimacy.
.
... Institution of "transnational embassies." That is to say,
not representing a specific nation and at the service of all of
the Earth’s inhabitants, in coordination with the World
Parliament.
.
3. Organization of the World Parliament
.
A Chamber of advisers ...
.
Representation by task or "community of ideas", Which would
reflect the main concerns of the Earth’s inhabitants and would
lead to representation on a clear and precise contract that is
to be necessarily fulfilled. ...
.
Automatic dismissal of elected officials who do not vote
according to their people’s will or comply with it. According to
organized polls. ...
.
Organization in "sociocratic circles" and networks of actors,
from the bottom to the top. Deliberative circles at a human
scale (no more than a very limited number of people) of the
actors concerned (clients, infrastructure suppliers, etc.)
should form networks, and when the dimension and the complexity
of the community unit grows, nests of networks.
.
One of the practical aspects that make sociocracy work is the
double link among circles. This means one or several
representatives at the next level up and one or several to bring
the decision making back down to a lower level. This ensures
bottom-up and top-down communication. It also takes into account
a bilateral delegation of the execution of the tasks. One can
thus establish eight levels of small circles from the street to
the planet, where everyone can move up or down on the ladder.
.
In the "professional politicians" version, each level of
government would be fairly independent, so it would not be
possible for a politician to move from the bottom up. Every
legislator - cantonal, provincial, national, or continental -
would be catapulted to his/her position by a combined lottery,
for a single term.
.
... www.alliance21.org/annuaire/ENG/us.html
#Post#: 438--------------------------------------------------
IDM Examples #3
By: Admin Date: May 22, 2022, 8:05 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Last 6 Testimonials
*** SOCIOCRACY TESTIMONIAL #14
>
HTML http://integralvisioning.org/article.php?story=p2p90
.
P2P Governance (6): Consensus vs. consent
www.republicrat.net/disc/aeas/burnicki01_en.htm
.
Two items give contrasting views on peer governance. In the
first, a neo-anarchist tradition promotes consensus. It is an
approach that in my mind constitutes the dictatorship of a
minority over the majority, and I do not see how to reconcile it
with individual initiative and a dynamic society. The second
item is about consent, which is different, cfr. the following
quote.
.
"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."
.
I find consent, which is a form of governance explicitely taking
into account the equivalence of participants, very closely
related to the peer to peer mode, which is based on
equipotentiality. Sociocracy, see item 2, may well be the
breakthrough form of governance I had been looking for.
.
1. The neo-anarchist consensus approach.
.
Excerpt from a video-interview with Ralf Burnicki: The
anarchists that I refer to in "Anarchismus und Konsens" are more
from the neo-anarchist realm. Among them are: Jan Stehn,
Burkhard Keimburg, Charlie Blackfield, and Gunar Seitz. That is
the question: how can we imagine an alternative anarchist
society that is able to exist without a Soviet system, a society
that forms at the grass roots, at the grass roots of everyday
life, in daily mutual cooperation. The upper social classes are
entirely done away with. The issues are: how we can arrive at
decisions free of political authority and how we can survive
without an "above."
.
The neo-anarchy that has developed in Germany since 1968 is
mainly non-violent. Also in anarcho-syndicalist contexts and in
non-violent contexts, the motto is that the goal of revolution,
namely, freedom and equality, should be reflected in the means
for achieving revolution. Accordingly, these means cannot rest
on violence, because violence is not a goal of an anarchist
society.
.
Furthermore, anarchy is so difficult for people to understand,
because many people can't imagine life without control, the
organs of the State, control from above. They haven't learned to
develop self-administered organizational structures; they
haven't learned to realize dominance-free decision-making,
beginning with their private affairs.
.
The anarchist principle of consensus democracy foresees a very
different principle that can be understood in two ways. First,
in an anarchist consensual democracy, affected persons would
have the right to be consulted on decisions. Second, all persons
who are disadvantaged by a decision - I'll call them dissenters
- would have the right to veto in this decision-making process.
This right allows them to nullify the decision so that
discussion can begin again. Through their right to veto,
dissenters would have great significance within the
decision-making process, and the possibility to avert
disadvantages.
.
Waste transport, for example, as it takes place in a
representative democracy, would never occur. With today's waste
transport and radioactive waste dumping, the affected population
living at the site has no veto rights whatsoever. It has no
right of any kind to nullify these decisions by the government,
although it is very strongly affected on site by the effects of
radioactive contamination and accidents. In an anarchist
consensual democracy, such decisions would be impossible,
because they could be nullified at any time by those affected,
and in these cases the affected population would simply use
their right to veto.
.
Three basic elements provide a rough picture of how the
principle of consensus functions: there is a meeting of the
affected persons, or of those who bear any consequences of a
decision. It is possible to react to a decision by either
rejecting it through a veto or accepting the decision. The
latter means that this issue affects me now, but I can accept
the consequences, because the impact is not significant, or
because I don't want to hold up the process and I see a
rationale in it. Ideally, there is consensus, or unanimous
agreement and adherence to a decision or a perspective on the
decision. Unanimous agreement represents the ideal of consensual
democracy.
.
In practice, however, there are often compromises for which all
sides are able to notch up half or three-quarter advantages.
Consensus is, however, the intended goal in an anarchist
consensual democracy. The aim is to eliminate overriding
majority-based decisions. The anarchist consensus model, like
anarchy as a whole, represents a view of society that focuses
especially on the micro-level of society. Concern is not with
relations between the government and the governed, but solely
with the governed that dispose of the government. The idea is
for people to come together at a grass roots level,
independently and autonomously, and in cooperation with others,
make decisions on the so-called micro-level of society.
.
Anarchist theory actually has two fundamental critiques of the
State: first, the State constantly produces governments,
regardless of whether they can be voted out of office after a
certain amount of time, and, second, this creates a
hierarchically structured upper and an affected lower class.
This is unjust and runs counter to any concept of egalitarianism
and also to a demand aired in democratic theory - that
ultimately, the main concern is the people's interests.
.
.
--
See sociocracy + benefit or testimonial or improvement
--
.
*** SOCIOCRACY TESTIMONIAL #15
Vermont Peace Academy
www.shapingnewworlds.com/youthlt.htm
Promoting the Teaching, Learning, and Practice of Peace
Peace-Building Training
Skills for an Interdependent World
Designed for Grades 6th-12th
.
Interpersonal Peace
.
Communication Skills: We learn and practice a language that
connects, empowers, and enriches our communication by focusing
on observations, feelings, needs, and requests. This simple form
becomes a useable and healthy practice in any situation.
.
Conflict Transformation: Council and NVC are evolutionary
processes that help us to break patterns of thinking and
cultural conditioning that lead to conflict. We use innovative
strategies to free ourselves from these effects and to develop
relationships based on mutual respect.
.
Community Building: In circle, we honor the value of community.
Everyone is important and has a unique piece to add.
Importantly, each voice is respected and heard. We explore how
we can move from a hierarchal structure to one of shared power
and cooperation.
.
Decision Making: Based on the model of Sociocracy, we learn to
make decisions efficiently while respecting every person in the
group. Instead of operating by majority rule, we learn to
construct the best decisions that are within everyone’s range of
tolerance.
.
Global Peace
.
Cross-cultural Systems: Cultures around the world differ in
their belief systems and underlying values. By becoming aware of
what is important to us and others, we expand our vision to a
larger world view? We discover the commonality within our
diversities.
.
International Relations: We are introduced to youth from around
the world who are actively working for peace. We learn about
their ideas, vision, and projects that are helping to make a
difference today. We network and share resources to build an
international youth community.
.
Social Justice: Social and economic equity are vital to a
globally sustainable and interconnected world. The big question
is, “Can we be free while others are oppressed?” In Council, we
address the topics of poverty, gender equality, and
discrimination.
.
Sustainable Communities: Sustainable practices protect natural
resources and rely on patterns of production and consumption
that are renewable and enhance community well being.
Historically, these practices originated with indigenous peoples
who lived in synch with the rhythms of nature. What might we
learn from these people and their ancient traditions that may be
applicable today?
.
--
.
*** SOCIOCRACY TESTIMONIAL #16
www.masternewmedia.org/2004/11/29/taking_back_our_decisionmaking
_power.htm
MasterNewMedia by Robin Good
What Communication Experts Need To Know
.
Taking Back Our Decision-Making Power: Sociocracy
Thanks to a message forwarded through the Participatory Society
discussion group Cifranogy, I have just learned about a
fascinating cooperative working model that brings together many
of the traits we, freedom thinkers and independent agents feel
so close to.
.
The system, originated by a Dutch thinker during the 20th
century allows the realization of the many dreams that have
fallen flat with the advent of many so-called democracies.
.
It is a system to run your social network and your community
locally. On its own gas. It is a system that supersedes
representative democracy with a cooperative participatory
approach where everyone is a critical, active stakeholder.
.
It is a system that recognizes that the sustainable size of such
communities is a critical issue and that acknowledges the need
for many small interconnected networks of communities to replace
traditional government-like centralized solutions.
.
Too good to be true? Read on what sociocracy is, and then tell
me wat you think of it. The contents that follow have been
collected, prepared and published by Ted at Twin Oaks Community
web site. Please visit the site to read more about this subject.
.
SOCIOCRACY
.
A theoretical system of government in which the interests of all
members of society are served equally.
.
Gerard Endenburg, one of the developers of Sociocracy stated:
"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.
.
... 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.
.
... 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.
.
--------
.
*** SOCIOCRACY TESTIMONIAL #17
www.masternewmedia.org/2004/11/29/taking_back_our_decisionmaking
_power.htm
.
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. As power
is shared, ownership is shared too.
.
Two more traits make Sociocracy uniquely identifiable:
Organomorphism and strong support for Diversity.
.
1) Organopomorphic
.
Sociocracy resembles organic systems? 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 (hierarchy)
-3. Changes constantly
-4. Expresses Diversity
-5. Cannot be controlled and dominated
-6. Is self-maintaining and self-renewing (Autopoietic)
.
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 exception rather than the rule 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.
.
Sociocratic organizations link up with other sociocratic
organizations and become reliant on each other.
.
For those of you, like me, who strongly oppose centralization
and hopes of a world government, there is a different way to
look at things.
.
Through the sociocratic lens you can have one world government
without being controlled by one power center. All of it could be
achieved with cooperative networks.
.
A sociocratic organization is always connected to other
sociocratic organizations. Ideally there would be a lot of them.
Each community network 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.
.
2) Diversity
.
With Consent the more people that make a decision, the better
the decision will be. People with vastly different ideas can
craft a decision that is win-win for everybody. A group makes
better decisions when ten people are present than when five
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."
.
--------
.
*** SOCIOCRACY TESTIMONIAL #18
www.masternewmedia.org/2004/11/29/taking_back_our_decisionmaking
_power.htm
Are Corporations Slaves?
.
John Buck, who found out about sociocracy in the Netherlands,
studied it,
and brought the idea 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?
.
This 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.
.
All of the material excerpted on this page has been collected,
edited and originally published by Ted at the Twin Oaks
Community website. I have only moderately edited the original
content to make it more legible without changing in any
significant way the actual content or ideas expressed in it.
.
posted by Robin Good on Monday November 29 2004
updated on Saturday January 21 2006
.
Readers' Comments
December 13, 2004 Cielja Kieft
.
I was happily surprised by the article over sociocray on your
site; knowing that spreading this wonderful (open) system by the
internet is a direct way to have more people know about it. The
way you explained it is clear, informative and makes curious. I
was glad you had all kind of links for people to read more about
it, because only describing the method is a very technical
approach, as are the books about sociocracy.
.
My first encounter with sociocracy was a ‘live’ one. We had a
meeting with some 80 trainers. And we had hired a person from
the Sociocratic Center to lead the meeting. Already after the
openings round, the first ever for me, I was ‘sold’: I wanted to
know more about this! It felt good, it felt right, it felt
supportive, it generated enthusiasm. The aggressive complaints
that the people in the meeting started with, just melted away,
to never come back! All of a sudden we knew again what we wanted
and that we wanted to do it together.
.
After I took the sociocratic management training I started an
elementary school parliament. I discovered that sociocracy is
very quick adapted by children. In fact it reflects the way they
want to interact and have conflict resolutions. After they had
experienced the voting system they never wanted the ‘unfair
democratic way’ again.
.
So back to basics! I recommend every one to look for ‘life’
opportunities to experience sociocracy!
.
December 1, 2004
.
"The role of cooperation has been largely unmapped... Now is the
time to finally build this map...". Here is a map
www.1-900-870-6235.com/PeaceMap.htm of a whole new approach to
dispute settlement / resolution; one that does not require
either black or white party to compromise to "grey". It maps the
way to new forms of cooperation, that still honour conflicting
opinions and objectives.
.
December 1, 2004 Sepp Hasslberger
.
Cooperation vs. Competition - Toward a Literacy of Cooperation -
A course at Stanford University, open to the public.
.
Darwin had a blind spot. It wasn't that he didn't see the role
of cooperation in evolution. He just didn't see how important it
is. So for two centuries -- a time during which the world passed
from an agrarian landscape into a global post-industrial culture
of unprecedented scale and complexity --science, society, public
policy and commerce have attended almost exclusively to the role
of competition. The stories people tell themselves about what is
possible, the mythical narratives that organizations and
societies depend upon, have been variations of "survival of the
fittest." The role of cooperation has been largely unmapped.
.
November 30, 2004 Sepp Hasslberger
.
Not only are corporations slaves, as John Buck eloquently shows,
but it appears that corporations own more of the United States
than we normally would believe. Many of the nominally government
entities are actually corporations, and even the United States
itself seems to be a corporate entity.
.
Recommended Books
.
Sociocracy As Social Design
Gerard Endenburg, Clive Bowden, Murray Pearson
.
Sociocracy: The organization of decision-making
Gerard Endenburg, Jasper Lindenhovius, Clive Bowden
.
It Ain't Necessarily So : How Media Make and Unmake the
Scientific Picture of Reality - David Murray - Amazon Price:
$15.72
.
-----------
.
*** SOCIOCRACY TESTIMONIAL #19
Zen Practice : Zen Peacemaker Circles : Starting a Circle -
Principles
www.zenpeacemakers.org/zp/circles/starting/principles.htm
Key Principles of Circle Practice
.
1. Circle practice as Zen practice.
.
Circle practice is a form of Zen practice. It is about realizing
and actualizing the oneness and interdependence of life by
integrating Zen practice with loving action. The intention is
not to replace traditional Zen practice or any other type of
contemplative practice engaged in by circle members, but to
extend those practices by offering a form wherein people can
come together to study, receive support from one another, and
engage in loving actions that reflect their deepening
understanding of what life is. Dogen tells us that to study
Buddhism is to study the self, that to study the self is to
forget the self, and that to forget the self is to be
enlightened by all things. In circle practice we come to
genuinely care for one another, and we begin to get a sense of
belonging to something larger than our individual selves. As we
practice together the circle grows wider and wider. Is it really
possible for any of us to become "enlightened" without all of us
crossing to the other shore together?
.
2. Recognizing everyone in the circle as a jewel in Indra’s Net.
.
Everyone is encouraged to bring forth their authentic voice, to
speak from the heart of their own experience, and to participate
fully in the life of the circle with a sense of responsibility
and ownership for the circle.
.
3. We’re all peers.
.
Everyone in a circle is a peer. Even if a person functions as a
teacher outside the circle, within the circle he/she is a peer.
This principle also holds in the organizational structure where
the various local circles come together as peers.
.
4. Tension between the vertical and the horizontal.
.
Different people have different skills. There will be times when
the circle looks to one or another person for guidance in a
particular matter. However, fundamentally the circle is the
teacher and everyone needs to take responsibility for bringing
awareness of the tendency for people to assume positions of
authority and power and for people to project authority or power
onto certain individuals.
.
5. Honoring diversity.
.
We invite all the voices - all the voices within ourselves as
well as the diverse voices within the circle.
.
6. Respecting the voice of the circle.
.
We listen openly, intently, and respectfully to everyone in the
circle and think about the direction the circle is moving in.
Sociocracy has a saying, "Priority for the benefit of all." We
do strive for consensus, but in a way that works for everyone.
Before making a decision we ask, "Can you live with it?" If
someone absolutely cannot, we discuss the issue again. Each
person is important. It is not a matter of submitting or giving
in to the majority. We don’t give up our ideas, preferences, or
values, but learn to speak from the heart, to honor our
differences, and to be less attached to the idea of a separate
self. We care for everyone. We also care for the well-being of
the circle and expect individuals to commit to its healthy
functioning.
.
7. Honoring the shadow.
.
It is important to allow awareness of those parts of ourselves
from which we are operating unconsciously, as individuals and as
a group, and to name what we see.
.
8. Turning into the skid.
.
When difficult issues, feelings or problems arise, go with them.
Change the agenda to reflect what is truly alive in the circle
at that moment. Don’t deny what is happening. Embrace conflict
and explore it.
.
177 Ripley Road | Montague, MA 01351 | Phone: (413) 367-2080 | ©
2006 Zen Peacemakers
-----------
.
*** SOCIOCRACY TESTIMONIAL #20
HTML http://www.ecovil.com/Pages/governance.html
EcoVillage of Loudoun County, Virginia
Mission and Goals
- EcoVillage of Loudoun County combines the co-housing ideal of
people living together in community with the ecovillage ideal of
people living in harmony with Earth and its inhabitants. We aim
to restore nature and expand human potential by creating a
lifestyle that nurtures the human spirit and offers hope for
future generations.
- 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.
-----------
.
*** SOCIOCRACY TESTIMONIAL #21
HTML http://gr.grassroots.org/jive3/thread.jspa?forumID=9&threadID=1581&messageID=5939#5939
Sociocracy - Posted: May 28, 2006 12:30 PM
Has anyone heard of this new form of governance that is
considered an evolutionary step forward from democracy? We are
finding it a most exciting and encouraging practice that is
transforming how organizations function and become places where
good ideas thrive.
Maggie Dutton in Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
HTML http://evolve.awakeningcompassion.com/?p=17
HTML http://thesourcefarm.proboards92.com/index.cgi?board=governance&action=display&thread=1174073542&page=1
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page