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!
Monday, April 27, 2009
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
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 economi
c 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!
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 economi
c 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!
Sunday, April 19, 2009
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...
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...
Saturday, April 18, 2009
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.
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. <
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.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
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, a
nd 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.
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, a
nd 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.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
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 prop
er 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".
Monday, April 13, 2009
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!
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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
