Quick & Dirty or Slow & Well Done

One of the first concern I hear during early sociocratic meetings is the impression that using that format will lead to longer, less efficient meetings. In such cases, I feel like I must ask the question: What is efficiency?

People often think of efficiency in terms of how many agenda items a group can cover over the span of a meeting. I was recently attending meetings for a pan-Canadian federation of French-speaking organizations. I have to commend all of those who take their time to get together and attempt to make things better for those they represent (in this case, French-speaking Canadians who live in a minority setting outside Quebec). There are many important decisions that need to be made, and the responsibility for these representatives is quite significant.

There were many items that needed to be covered over two days, and the second day was reserved for the official decision-making meeting. The agenda was not too loaded, and so it seemed as though we would manage to get through every item within the set agenda, which we did. But a few things struck me along the way…

Whenever a proposal is put on the table, the people around the table are asked to contribute by either asking questions or stating impressions. Often, it appears quite clearly that one or a few individuals take issue with the proposal at hand. If the discussion lasts for more than a few minutes, a vote is called and the majority settles the question. This is Democracy at its best, a true example of the people speaking up and steering their fate. It is efficient, issues get resolved, decisions are made, and life goes on.

But does it really? What about those who voted against the proposal? What about the objections they had? I for one had a strong objection to a proposal that was presented. I did not object to the overall intention, but I felt it was not clear enough, and that we were missing an opportunity to go further. After I intervened a couple of times on the issue, I started to feel the impatience of the group as well as the facilitator's, and a vote was called.

The result: I felt disrespected, diminished, and left out. I also felt we had not allowed ourselves to really discuss the issue at hand. Of course, I am aware I may have been the one erring, but we did not grant ourselves the opportunity to openly share on the topic at hand.

In sociocratic meetings, objections are sought and welcomed. They are considered essential as a quality control mechanism. When objections arise, it very likely indicates that the proposal at hand is not yet as good as it can be. Objections are valued for the fact that they bring to light potential gaps within a proposal.

The format of a sociocratic meeting also fosters an atmosphere of trust and comfort where circle members seek out each other's objections. Unlike many regular meetings where dissent is frowned upon, sociocratic gatherings make it the duty of each member to voice these objections. As such, people feel welcomed and included when they challenge issues at hand. And with that, the team's capacity and creativity goes up and up and up!

Are We Just Insane?

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. - Einstein -

Hence the title of this post. It occurs to me that our society is not very quick at realizing the wisdom of that statement. One simply has to look at the current economic and environmental crisis to see how "insane" we have collectively become. The markets came crashing down, the environment can hardly sustain much more of this capitalist system, and still, the "economic recovery plans" all call for a return to what it was before the crash! Of course, there is the question of more regulation on the financial system, but as a whole, the plan is to get the average citizen back onto the stores spending money to roll the economy. Is it just me or that does not sound like much of a sustainable plan? The same seems to often happen with organizations. Results fluctuate over the years, sometimes for the best, sometimes not.

Every now and then, when things are not going so well, Management will call for a restructuring to shake things up in the hope of achieving better results in the future. But one has to wonder why, if such restructuring operations are "good", do they have to be performed so often? Is it the only way to adapt to changing environments? Is it the best approach to affect change in the results of the organization? And what about the negative consequences of such "decisive actions"?

By its very nature, Sociocracy is a dynamic approach that triggers creativity and draws from the wisdom of the collective. At all levels of an organization, various individuals hold varying amounts and various types of information, perspectives, and experiences. Perhaps the greatest challenge for managers is the feat of tapping into that collective wisdom in order to inform decisions that must be made. Dynamic Governance does that through the structure it brings to systems. In many ways, DG removes the impact of personalities by fostering the involvement and contribution of the collective. That ends up being both empowering for the members of the organization, and to the system itself. Once in a while, it is worth trying something different. In such a case, it actually makes sense to expect different results!

Is there a we?

Society. Collectivity. Group. Gathering. Team. Unit. Band. Party. Troop. System. Contingent. Aggregation. Set. Faction. Bunch. Club. Corps. Detachment. Gang.

And then there is me. A group of one. A single unit, a link in the chain, an individual, unique, important, paramount, with ideas, aspirations, ambitions, drives, fears, limitations, incentives, talents, and so, so much more! So, where do I fit in the aboves? How can I relate to so much complexity?

One of the things I personally find most rewarding is the results of teamwork. Being the extrovert that I am, an experience is never fully complete unless I can share it with another being. And the closer the other is to me, the better the overall experience becomes once shared.

In life, unless one chooses to live a life of total seclusion, interactions are inevitable. Beyond being mere crossings, these interactions are in fact interdependencies. For example, food that is purchased was produced in a way we trust to be safe.The vehicles we drive were manufactured by others, the bus we ride is driven by someone else, and the bridges we cross were designed and built by men and women we do not even know. So we constantly trust and rely on others.

Yet, when we dive closer into a system's work units, there is often distrust and dislike (which usually go hand-in-hand!). "The meaning behind "socio-" is that the organization is governed by those who "associate together."" (Sharon Villines, from an email on sociocracy@yahoogroups.com posted on Monday, April 20, 2009) As such, Dynamic Governance wires the organization in such a way that it allows (in fact, it actually leads towards) employees working together in structuring the system within which they work.

One of the challenges I face while helping with the implementation is the distrust some employees have with anything that is brought forward. As a long-standing reaction to (sometimes perceived as illogical or ill-reasoned) changes, many employees, including managers, have withdrawn from the "socio" aspect of the organization. The result is that it takes time to build trust and to bring everyone on board.

Patience is of the essence, or so I thought until very recently.... until it dawned on me that patience is irrelevant. Perhaps what is truly needed for this "socio" to emerge is empathy. Patience is but a small aspect of empathy...

POWER

Power is a loaded term. It is anything but neutral. Some love it, others crave it, many fear it, and most are subjected to multiple forms of it.

As one can read on Wikipedia, "Power is a measure of an entity's ability to control the environment around itself, including the behavior of other entities. The term authority is often used for power, perceived as legitimate by the social structure. Power can be seen as evil or unjust, but the exercise of power is accepted as endemic to humans as social beings".

Power is energy, and as such is essential for life. Systems cannot organize themselves without some form of energy. Of course, how that energy is applied, how the power is used, will have a tremendous impact on the system and its components. In electrical systems, power must be regulated and kept constant. If a surge occurs, there are control mechanisms to shut it off through a breaker switch. This is of paramount importance as without such a control system, the electricity could cause a fire, kill someone, or fry electronic systems.

In human systems, power must also be controlled and managed. history has shown time and again that too much power in the hands of too few individuals can (and I claim usually will) lead to an abuse of that power. Infamous cases include (but are unfortunately not limited to), Nicolae Ceauşescu, dictator of Romania; Kim Jong-il, dictator of North Korea; Augusto Pinochet, dictator of Chile; Adolph Hitler, dictator of Germany; and the list could go on and on and on.

What do these have in common? Power was gathered and accumulated through the control of information. Information is power. <> can mean the difference between life and death in certain situations. In traditional organizations, top managers typically know more than employees at the bottom of the org chart. Because they hold more information, they may begin to think that such knowledge separates them from the people who have less. The fact that power can be used to control people without regard to their ideas, opinions, feelings, and aspirations can easily discourage people. In many organizations unit members feel powerless to bring about change to their working/relational environments. Individuals often feel as though there is nowhere to bring good ideas forward; no process in place to share and create; no forum to enable creative thoughts.

In Sociocracy, knowledge is wisdom. Because every employee works in a different level of the organization, it is therefore assumed that all these employees hold varying types of wisdom, none of which is more important to the system than the others. As such, everyone has the potential, and the means to, bring out proposals that will help steer the organization in the best possible direction.

As soon as an individual, be it a top manager, an elected representative, or a middle manager, so long as the person holds power, it can become destructive. Without the proper structure to harness that power and control it, it can easily fall off the rails and create havoc. The best intentions often have the most destructive consequences unless everyone who is subjected to it can have an equivalent voice.

Power is most constructive when well managed and well contained. A solid structure is required to achieve these. This is exactly what Sociocracy does.

The Rules of Engagement

Sociocracy is effective. It works. And the reason it works is because it has a clear set of rules that make sense to people. These rules were not drafted at random. They were carefully crafted to be in line with the laws of Nature.

The four Rules of Sociocracy are as follow (as taken from sociocracy.fr):

1. The Circle
The Circle is the basic unit in a system. It is formed to perform specific duties that have been clearly identified. It is a sub-system of the organization and is in charge of establishing its own rules of functioning. It operates under the rules of Consent Decision-making and is responsible for self-regulating its processes. That being said, no circle operates independently from the rest of the organization. All decisions are made while considering higher circles (as represented by the circle manager) and lower ones (as represented by the double-link). Managers bring a macro-vision of the organization and its environment; double-links bring a more micro-vision. Together, they offer as complete a vision as possible.

2. The Double-Link
A circle is connected to the circle above it in two ways: the unit manager, and the elected representative. Both persons will sit at the higher circle for all policy-related decisions. The circle is also connected to the lower circle in two ways: the manager of the lower circle sits in along with an elected representative from that lower circle. As illustrated on the org chart on the right, each unit is part of a greater whole. In a typical organization, only each unit's manager sits on the higher unit table. In a Sociocratic organization, the manager is accompanied by the elected rep. That rep participates in the higher circle's decisions in the same capacity as all the other members of that circle.

3. Decision-Making by Consent
Consent refers to the absence of a Paramount (reasoned) Objection. As such, no policy decisions can be made if anyone in the circle has a well-reasoned objection to it. When objections are raised, the group takes on the task of working creatively to address the objection and integrate solutions into an amended proposal. When all objections are gone, the proposal is accepted.

4. Elections by Consent
Sociocratic elections are fun and empowering. Each circle member writes down the name of his/her candidate (it can be oneself) as well as his/her own name on an election ballot. The circle facilitator then proceeds to reveal each nomination out loud, and asks each proposer to voice the reasons of his/her nomination. Once all the ballots and arguments have been openly disclosed, the facilitator proceeds to ask each circle member whether, after having heard all the arguments around the table, they want to change their vote to a different candidate. Once that is done, the facilitator (or a circle member) proceeds to make a formal proposal for one candidate. Objections are sought, and once no objections are left, the nomination is carried through and the nominated is elected.
This process leads to the strenghtening of teams. It builds up trust, creativity, accountability, and openness. I have seen new circles run through elections like a butter goes through warm butter, and I have witnessed other circles get completely stuck over an election, requiring an extra meeting to get through it. In any of these situations, all teams have come out stronger.


When followed, the rules of Dynamic Governance (Sociocracy) enable teams to work more effectively, more efficiently, and much, much more creatively. Each and every single time I have attended and participated in a DG meeting (and there have been many as I am supporting the implementation experiment at the College), I have come out impressed, touched, humbled, and more confident in the process.

Different Place, Same Struggles...

"Currently, for one enterprise that bathes in multiple intelligence, there are a dozen more that sit in a culture of conflicts and madness"
(Karl Albrecht, loosely translated by myself, and how well illustrated by the Dilbert Cartoon!)

I recently had a wonderful conversation with a great friend of mine whom I had not seen for a while. In chatting and catching up, this blog came up and he asked me for more details about the mechanics of Dynamic Governance. He then proceeded to share how his working environment is quite difficult to cope with. The dynamics between management and employees are unhealthy; distrust is running high; grudges abound, frustrations are multiple, and solutions are scarce. So, what is going on here? Is every single member of that unit dysfunctional? Or is this a case of a bad apple having rot the basket? What if we tried to look at it from an entirely different perspective?

Too often, managers move into managerial positions without having had proper training. They have not been taught management or leadership. They have not been prepared to deal with employees in a supervisory role. Essentially, they wing it based on what they think a good manager is and does. They try to consult with their employees at the same time as they try to keep them in line. Mistakes are made. Discomfort abounds. And the downward spiral takes hold of the unit and drags everyone down. Does it mean they are responsible for all the dynamics of the unit? I would claim not. Situations are much more powerful than anyone alone.

So, what is the solution then? Well, for my friend, I do not know what will happen. But I would be keen to try implementing DG as a decision-making model for that unit, just to see what would happen... I have my ideas about that...

Here at Yukon College, I have seen circles engage in discussions that had not happened for many years. Certain groups had not even met as a unit for countless months (and a few for years!). I saw circle members grab on to the new process and allow themselves the space to voice their concerns, ideas, and objections. I saw countless circle members enter their first circle meeting with a negative attitude towards this new process (and voicing that attitude in the opening round) only to leave that first meeting with a tingle in the eyes and a much more positive closing round comment.

So what is it that happens within the span of an hour that can bring people from a place of negativity to a realm of possibilities? I am still not sure as to what it is that awakens people during these meetings... but my strong opinion is that once people are given the space to be within their circle, and once people are openly included in their unit, they naturally blossom and flourish.

As Abraham Maslow so wisely put it, "When people appear to be something other than good and decent, it is only because they are reacting to stress, pain, or the deprivation of basic human needs such as security, love, and self-esteem".

All Evil Starts with 15 Volts

Ever heard of the foot in the door phenomenon? It is the notion that complying to small requests makes one more likely to comply to larger ones after. In Milgram's experiment, it is unlikely anyone would have administered the highest shock at the onset of the experiment; rather, participants went from a seemingly harmless 15 volt shock, up to 30, then 45, then 60, and so on... every time going up by only 15 volts. Having complied to so many previous requests, and having climbed the ladder so steadily, the refusal to continue becomes less and less likely.

In keeping in line with my previous post, I offer you the following video taken from TED: Ideas Worth Sharing. TED stands for: Technology, Entertainment, Design. The mission of the organization is to rally people from the three worlds of TED and offer them a prestigious forum to share their ideas that could change the world (hummm... seems like we should look into sending John Buck to that venue at some point... something for a future post!).

Before you watch the video, here is a bit of context. Philip Zimbardo is a social psychologist who became famous after he conducted the Stanford Prison Experiment. The following is a great summary of the experiment, by Stephanie Cox:

''An article titled “Demonstrating the Power of Social Situations via a Simulated Prison Experiment” that was released through the American Psychological Association summed up the Stanford Prison experiment’s results by concluding that the “Stanford Prison Experiment has become one of psychology's most dramatic illustrations of how good people can be transformed into perpetrators of evil, and healthy people can begin to experience pathological reactions - traceable to situational forces.”'' The experiment also highlights the powerful influence role-playing has on shaping people's behaviour.

In the following video, Zimbardo does a wonderful job at describing how situations can foster good and bad behaviour. It is one really worth watching!

What Psychology Has to Say About YOU!

Social Psychology has always been one of my favourite topics in University, and later on as an Instructor of Psychology. I love the ingenuity behind the research, and find the results fascinating!

My all-time Social Psychology Hero is without question Stanley Milgram. His research has revolutionized both the field of Social Psychology and the way we think of the power of social systems/situations. In his landmark Behavioral Study of Obedience, Milgram made a powerful demonstration of the power of situations. His experiment involved subjects (teacher) asking another subject (learner - confederate posing as a subject) series of simple memory questions. Each time a wrong answer was given, progressively stronger shocks had to be delivered. In the span of about one hour, the majority of teachers went all the way to dangerous shock levels, even though the learner had stopped begging for the experiment to stop (feigning to have become unconscious - as you will have guessed, nobody got real shocks!). Indeed, 2/3 of his subjects (so-called normal, average individuals recruited through a newspaper ad) submitted to the pressure of the experimenter and killed the learner (again, this was simulated).

The study has entered into the public mainstream and has been integrated into popular culture. Peter Gabriel composed a song (see video below) and movies were made around the same topic.




What this experiment has taught me is that no matter who, given the right set of circumstances, people can be driven to conduct themselves in just about any sort of way. Such an important piece of knowledge has really helped me change the way I read people. A common error Westerners make in interpretings other's behaviour is the Fundamental attribution Error (assuming that people's behaviour is best explained by dispositional, or personality, factors rather than situational ones). I have also had the experience of observing myself acting differently under different sets of circumstances, which also points to the power of the situation.

Dynamic Governance is a new paradigm that restructures situations so that people's creativity, ingenuity, positivity, openness, morale, and so much more, can be influenced in a positive way. In the mid-1880's, Dorothea Dix lobbied for the reform of the care of the mentally ill. In a presentation to the Massachussets Legislature, she reported how the mentally ill were "confined within this Commonwealth, in cages, stalls, pens! Chained, naked, beaten with rods, and lashed into obedience". The resulting reforms led to great improvements in patient health and behaviour. Their insanity diminished as their situations changed.

Not unlike that example, organizational behaviour could also be viewed as a direct result of situational factors. Given the right conditions, people will exhibit teamwork, positive relationships, trust, creativity, and dedication. On the other hand, if the conditions are not so positive, workers can become disengaged, frustrated, resistant, bitter, and uncooperative.

So the question begs: Do we try to change the workers, or do we opt to change the system? Dynamic Governance restructures the environment so that people can emerge in a positive fashion. In my mind, that is worth every penny and sweat drop put into it!

Not a Revolution, but a Natural Evolution

Revolutions take on many forms. Some were violent, others not. The American Revolution (1775-1783) was bloody, whereas the French-Canadian Quiet Revolution (1960-1970) was a cultural shift without any bloodshed (unless the October Crisis gets counted in).

In the workplace, revolutions can also occur in both forms. Looking at the following headline: "It's okay to lock up your boss, says nearly half of France", the following question begs to be asked: Why does a Democratic People find it ok to use such extreme measures when firms are laying off workers? (the cartoon says: I am training just in case I get held up in the office by unhappy workers".

Ok. So why are workers so angry they will go to the extreme of kidnapping an executive? Granted, the five recent kidnappings each ended with the safe release of the hostage. According to Antoine Lyon-Caen, a professor of comparative labour law at the University of Paris-Nanterre, "The traditional way of holding a strike is to occupy the workplace, showing that 'it's our company, too" (thespec.com). It strikes me when I read about workers who want to be legitimized in their feelings that the organization is also "theirs". What should we make of this? Do workers indeed partly own the enterprise where they work? What if what they mean to say was, "We spend a significant part of our lives investing energy, sweat, passion, emotions, and so much more for this organization, we want to be heard and considered"!. What if what this really boils down to was, "Listen to us"!.

Dynamic Governance is not a revolution. I like to think of it as Natural Evolution.
It is natural in the sense that it grows above the systems already in place. Implementing DG does not require an organizational revolution. It does not require lay-offs, restructuring, or countless and never-ending consultant support. Dynamic Governance simply emerges when the leadership of an organization decides the time has come to do things better for the collective of the enterprise (and of course, that includes the enterprise itself).

A basic human need is the striving to belong. As infants, we begin a lifelong process of attachment that will never end (for fantastic work and perspectives on this, consult Dr. Gordon Neufeld's web site). This need to belong does not evaporate as we pass the doors of a factory, marketplace, university, or any other work setting for the matter. Just like children will be committed to their parents when a strong attachment exists, lovers will be committed when a strong bond is in place. The same is true for employees who will likely feel more committed to their employer when a positive relationship is in place. Of course I could now get into what defines a good relationship, but I will leave it to the readers to think about it... Suffice it to say that the people we feel most attached to, we seldom kidnap as an attempt to resolve arising issues!

Do You Ever Wonder Why?

Simple answer: Because it works (or that doesn't)!



And also because it is SO needed... Just take a moment and reflect on what is currently happening on the world stage: The economy is sinking... all the while top executives are receiving massive bonuses, regardless of the fact that businesses are not performing! Employees are laid off, while managers get raises and bonuses. Employee satisfaction is not very high, and according to the Co-operators, absenteeism costs Canadian employers 16$ billion per year!

Of course, one can frame just about anthing. The following report is a great example of this:
Majority of Canada’s Workers Happy, Bosses among Best in World
Kelly Services’ international workplace survey finds that 59 per cent of Canadian respondents are happy or very happy in their current job. So what to make of the other 41%? Those who are not satisfied?

Democracy is definitely an improvement over totalitarian regimes. Rule by the majority of people can be a great thing. But it comes at a price: the consideration of the minority. And as in the previous example, that can be well up in the 40's. Up to 49.9% actually! Canadians will remember the 1995 Québec Referendum, where 49.2% of the voters said "yes" to the question: Do you agree that Québec should become sovereign {...}? In effect, 50.8% of the voters determined the fate of everyone. With such close results, should one wonder why there are divisions?

Dynamic Governance operates on the Zero Objection principle. For a policy decision to be made, the circle members must have no objections to the proposal being decided upon. Objections must be Paramount (a term I will define in the posts to come). If an objection is raised, the group will work creatively at amending the proposal to integrate the wisdom brought forth in the objection. This has three immediate effects: better decisions are made, total buy-in is achieved, and strong team-building occurs. All this because the system takes into account human nature, which is to seek respect and consideration.

What Martial Arts Tell us About Dynamic Governance

The more I read and explore, the more I notice how very distinct walks of life converge towards the same conclusion: the circle is a powerful setting. Musk Ox use it to defend their youngsters. American settlers used the exact same technique to protect their families during the western colonization of the 19th century.

I have practiced Aikido for about five years, and it struck me that the circle was a fundamental principle with the art. Here is an excerpt from Seidokan Aikido World Headquarters:
Principle of Circular Motion
The spiritual circle is the foundation of all Aikido techniques. Circular movement synthesizes everything and can freely resolve all problems. [...] The centripetal force will draw the opponent into your range of effectiveness so that the centrifugal force can eject him effectively. All circular motions are preceded by a spiritual circle. The spiritual circle is the circle drawn within one's mind before the execution of the physical circle". Of course, what is referred to as "opponent" in Aikido can be viewed as "issues" to be resolved or "problems" that need to be worked on in a different setting.

Native People are also well-known for using the circle as a place of wisdom. Meetings and decisions were often made as a circle. I love this painting from Yukon artist Nathalie Parenteau (to see more or to purchase some of her art, click on the picture).

Popular expressions also convey the importance of circles, such as "to be kept in the loop", inferring that the circle is where the power lays. On a symbolic side, the icon representing females and the planet Venus has been "worshipped by all peoples and cultures of antiquity as the divinity of fertility, the goddess of war, beauty, and love" (click on image for reference source).

Dynamic Governance is a structure that uses the circle as a place where important decisions are made. Discussions are conducted as a circle, and "naturally occurring" groups within organizations each form an operational circle. Comments I often hear from various members of the circles I work with at Yukon College are related to the feelings of safety that arise from such a way of working together. Feedback also regularly mentions the effectiveness of the structure. Personally, I feel powerful within that structure, because I feel like I can make a difference with my peers and colleagues. The circle gives us a space to share ideas and gather the wisdom of the others. As the saying goes, "Two heads are better than one"!

A Light in the Northern Darkness

A widely-spread belief I often encounter when I travel South (of the 60th parallel) is that the winter in the Yukon must be so difficult to live through in the dark. If summers have near 24 hours of daylight, then surely winter must have near 24 hours of darkness. Bzzzzzzzt! Wrong! Winter solstice brings with it 5.5 hours of sunlight (in Whitehorse that is... further north, it is less). Add to this a full hour of sunrise and sunset, that makes for well over 6.5 hours of light (and also makes for amazing skies!!!). Yukon College is located on top of a hill which gives it a fabulous view over the valley and the mountains. On many occasions I have heard colleagues comment on how wonderful the sky was coming into work! I have personally felt awed many times over.... a sort of connection with nature... Life in the north can be harsh but with that comes inspiring beauty. With temperatures sometimes flirting near minus 50 degrees (Celcius, that is), one must give in to Nature's laws. It is impossible to ignore Nature. One must respond appropriately or else face the consequences.

I recently attended a presentation offered to future teachers by a wonderful Yukon Elder. He was sharing his knowledge of how his and certain other First Nations used to govern themselves "way, way back". I had never had the privilege of simple sitting and listening to such an elder so I simple let the information seep in. What I remember most from his presentation was that above anything else, the Laws of Nature must be followed. Without Nature, one cannot survive. And within Nature, one must be wise enough to submit to its tenets.

I am currently reading a wonderful book, Cradle to Cradle - Remaking the Way we Make Things, by McDonough & Braungart (2002). A great summary of the book is written by Hal Clifford: "Take a look at nature, the pair says, and you'll see that growth is not only good, but necessary -- that nature's very abundance is what environmentalists (and the rest of us) depend on and celebrate. The key is the right kind of growth -- and the key to that is better design."

The authors make a strong argument for the need to bring ourselves back closer to Nature's laws. "The Western view saw nature as a dangerous, brutish force to be civilized and subdued. Humans perceived natural forces as hostile, so they attacked back to exert control" (p.25). Unfortunately, the more we have tried to control Nature, the more damaging we have become to it, and by extension, to ourselves.

Being the Psychologist that I am, I cannot help but draw a parallel between this human tendency to subdue Nature, and humans' tendency to overpower others' proclivities. There are countless examples of organizational structures that are simply not following the laws of Nature. A simple physical example that comes to mind is the Justice Building in Whitehorse, Yukon. It is a beautiful structure, with a large atrium connecting the two sections together. A few years back, in that very same building, I attended a two-day workshop with about eight other people in a room depleted of windows, with neon lighting, and not enough ventilation. The building's windows do not open, so having had windows may not have provided much comfort. Everyone was cooked by the end of each day, even though the workshops were not very demanding. I felt a sense of gloom after having spent only two days in there... I can only imagine what working in a place without windows that open might do to me! So much for a centre of justice that does not follow the natural laws of human beings!

Getting back to McDonough & Braungart (2002), they provide a wonderful example of how working within the acceptable limitations of people (in other words, respecting people's range of tolerance) can bring about amazing positive results. Herman Miller is a furniture manufacturer. In 1995, the company opened a new plant that has become known as the GreenHouse. Looking at this picture, most people would guess it is the front of an Opera Hall before guessing it is the entrance to a furniture factory. And the front is only the beginning. (Click here to see more pictures of that factory). Besides the productivity increases, the authors report that employee retention rates have been impressive. Workers that had left for more paying jobs even returned once the new building was erected. When asked why they would leave a job that paid more, many replied they could not "work in the dark" (p.76). Here again we see that ignoring the nautral laws may seem like a victory for a while, but coming back to them certainly appears to increase many of the variables that are important to everyone.

The Butterfly Effect

How wonderful that a simple and unremarkable event in time can lead to such important consequences. Thinking back to where Sociocracy began for Yukon College, I am reminded of this concept many of you will be familiar with: The Butterfly Effect. Quickly put, it is "the idea that one butterfly could eventually have a far-reaching ripple effect on subsequent historic events" (taken from Wikipedia). How does this relate to Dynamic Governance at Yukon College?

To understand the history, we must go back about three years (2006), the the Crowne Plaza Hotel in Ottawa. In my role of President of the Yukon Francophone Association, I often attend national meetings in Ottawa, where representatives from all provincial Francophone associations meet to share ideas, plan, strategize, and so on. A good colleague and friend of mine, Denis Desgagnés, Executive Director of the Assemblée communautaire fransaskoise, started sharing about a new way of doing things, of making decisions, of communicating, of governing. That new way was supposedly more effective, more humanistic and inclusive, easy to use, leading to greater buy-in and satisfaction... and much more. Right away, my skeptic mind took over and I started to ask questions, often posed as opinions. Being the brilliant person that he is, Denis managed to answer all my questions and ignore my misplaced negative comments; but mostly, he managed to inspire me.

Move forward a year (2007). I am sitting in the community hall of L'AFY in the company of about 15 other people who had chosen to use their Saturday to listen to Francine Proulx-Kenzle, a wonderful woman from University of Regina's Institut français. The Institut français has a mandate to create a space at Regina University for French-language students to learn in French. It also has a mandate to work with the Assemblée communautaire fransaskoise and the community at large. As such, Francine and Denis were long-standing community partners and both were very familiar with Sociocracy (the original name of Dynamic Governance). Francine spent the day going over what Sociocracy is, how it can help organizations improve in terms of their decision-making and communications systems. At the end of that day, I found myself intrigued, somewhat confused, and very curious to learn more.

I went online and started digging. It took a while to find what I was looking for, as the web resources for this relatively new and relatively unknown approach were rather scarce (it is amazing to see how much more there is just two years later). I managed to find two links that turned out to change the course of my life, and, it turns out, possibly the course of Yukon College too. The first was a link to John Buck and Sharon Villines' book, We the People: Consenting to a Deeper Democracy, A Guide to Sociocratic Principles and Methods (2007). By the way, Yukon College employees, I have many copies in my office if you ever want to pick one up. Of course, I was not so keen on waiting for the book to arrive, so I found a second document, that one full-text online: The Creative Forces of Self-Organization, by John Buck and Gerard Edenburg (founder of modern Sociocracy). Once I read the article, I was hooked. The butterfly's air displacement had morphed into a breeze that would soon turn into wind... but I am getting ahead of myself.

I spent the fall of 2007 reading the book and pondering its implications. I discussed it with friends and family, thought about it some more, and dug for more information. That's when I found Gilles Charest's book, La démocratie se meurt, vive la sociocracie (2007). February 2008 soon came around the corner, and that is when I met the new Vice-president Education & Training for Yukon College, Karen Barnes. I was involved in a few sessions where staff were asking her questions around her management style and beliefs, and I was impressed by her openness and willingness to work with people. A few weeks later, I went to her office and simply gave her John Buck's book. I told her I thought she would like it, to which she replied she was very busy but would try to have a peek.

The very next day, I got an email from her. A simple line: "I’ve read half the book already – it is very good reading. Sometime we should meet to talk about it – I keep thinking about how one would organize this institution into that model. Hmmm".

That was all I needed to get going. We met on a few occasions to discuss how this could be experimented with, and it was suggested we bring up John Buck for the occasion of the Yukon College President's Breakfast, held each year late in August. I contacted John with the idea and he gladly accepted the opportunity to come up to the Yukon to present his expertise on the matter (I think he was as excited about coming to the Yukon as he was to present us with the information, but I will let him confirm this or not...).

Between March and August, little was done other than to plan John's visit. He was to spend the entire day of the 27th with the Senior Management Team (from the President down to the Chairs), the afternoon of the 28th (the President's breakfast day) with the staff who attended (around 150 out of 200), and the day of the 30th with the Senior management Team once again. The day of the 30th ended with a proposal to have an 4-month experimental phase in two areas of the College: the Liberal Arts and the Library Services. That phase would culminate into a formal evaluation of the experiment, after which a decision would be made to cease or continue with Dynamic Governance.

It is difficult to believe that was only eight months ago! So much has happened since... but you will have to wait for my next post to read more on how the wind of positive change swept the College.

Welcome to my DG Blog!

Well, let me first welcome myself to the 21st Century! This is my first Blog. I am ashamed to admit I resisted this for so long. It took the wisdom of many colleagues before I accepted my fate and actually went through the motions of setting this up (and that only after months of internal struggles and overt resistance). As I write this entry, I am left wondering how the page will look after I click the "Publish Post" button... another first coming up soon...

My purpose with this Blog is twofold: journal my experience with the introduction and implementation of Dynamic Governance (Sociocratic Governance) at Yukon College; and inform the College Community of the developments surrounding the implementation. I could also add a third purpose to the list, and that would be to provide general information about Dynamic governance.

As April begins, I am pondering where things have been, where they are at, and where they may go. Dynamic Governance at Yukon College was but a dream a year ago. At the onset of yesterday,25% of the College workforce was fully engaged in the process of making their work more open, more effective, and mainly, more satisfying. At the end of the day, another 60% of the College workforce was brought into this collective experiment. Much work will be required to help them become organized and comfortable with DG, but I am confident that by the end of the coming fall semester, over 80% of the College workforce will wonder how they used to operate without this innovative system. Just as the internet has become a central part of our lives (it is so well integrated that we forget we use it so much), Dynamic Governance has the potential to become a central part of who we are as an institution, and how we do things as a collective.

My intention over the next little while is to document the entire process of implementation over the past year. I also want to write about the potential of Dynamic Governance at the College and in the community.

If as a reader you have any suggestions to improve this blog, please do not hesitate to let me know.