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!