This page is also available in: Español (Spanish)

Sociocracy resources

Sociocracy combines consent decision-making, a decentralized system of authority and intentional processes to improve our decisions and processes over time into a governance system that supports effective and efficient process while increasing connection, listening and co-creation among members.

Learn more about…

U

Browse all of our content

Download our free booklet “Sociocracy – a brief introduction”

Learn more about each topic in sociocracy on this page. 

In addition, our booklet Sociocracy – a brief introduction is available as a free download for those who are signed up for our mailing list. The booklet includes an additional section on implementation and links to Sociocracy For All’s resources and books. 

Sign up and download the booklet

Who decides what: circles & roles

(Excerpt from the booklet. For a full version, download the booklet!)

Who decides what: Circles & roles
Linking. Leaders and delegates are linking roles. This means they are connectors to the parent or 'next-higher' circle. That means that two people will be members of both circles. They will carry information from one circle to another, and back, and make sure that decisions are aligned - since they are full members, their consent is needed in the parent circle to move forward. The leader is often seen as the top-down link, and the delegate as the bottom-up link.
Circle roles To run effectively, each circle will select who will fill which of these roles: * leader - oversees operations and makes sure the circle works towards its aim * facilitator - moderates the meetings * secretary - takes notes during meetings and makes sure the circle documents are up to date * delegate - represents the circle's voice in the next-higher circle. Groups sometimes rename the roles; for example, leader as (internal) coordinator or focalizer; facilitator as moderator; secretary as admin or scribe; delegate as representative or external coordinator. It's not uncommon to hold several roles at once. For example, the same person can be leader and secretary; this is up to the circle and its members and can change over time.
Circles oversee operations in their domain. The work is typically done by the circle members. To further differentiate who does what in a circle, a circle can form operational roles. The role is created with circle consent to the role description that describes which activities are clustered in the role. Then the circle selects someone to fill the role. For example, a Social Media Circle might make decisions on the social media strategy together but then create roles for each social media platform where individual circle members then carry out their work (posting, creating social media images, etc.) in alignment with those agreements and workflows. Example Role: Twitter point person Activities: regular posting, responding to direct messages, reaching out to partners and relevant allies. Guided by: Marketing Plan, Social Media strategy Hours/pay: 15h/week and $45/hour. Performance metrics: engagement rate xx It's very common for an individual to hold several roles at once. For example, a member or an organization might be in two circles: Marketing and Social Media Circle. This person might be the leader of Social Media Circle, hold the operational role of the Twitter point person in Social Media Circle, and be the facilitator of Marketing Circle - a mix of (process-oriented) circle roles and operational roles.
Circle structure. The whole system of nested circles and linked roles creates a structure where... It's clear where decisions are made - and circles are autonomous in decisions in their domains. Information flows between circles through linking and operational handoffs. Circles are aligned with each other through the links' consent. Every circle is embedded in its support system The circle system can grow and adapt where more energy is needed.
The General Circle. At the very center of the organization is the General Circle (GC). The GC consists only of linking roles: leaders of all department circles and their delegates. The aim of the GC is to make sure all department circles have what they need to function and that all aims and domains are clear and we always know what gets decided where. That means that the GC only decides who decides - but the decisions connected to our work are exclusively made in the circles themselves to keep decisions decentralized. The GC cannot override a circle's decision.
Tips and tricks When it comes to circle structure, the most common misconception is that power 'should' be centralized. Yet, with the clarity of aims and domains, it is not necessary to create one powerful center, and it's much more resilient and enjoyable to spread authority and responsibility throughout the organization. One challenge in decentralized organizations is that information between circles has to flow well; good reporting by links, transparent and open meeting minutes and proactive feedback and information to all members becomes even more important than in centralized organizations. Young organizations often form too many circles and get stretched too thin, or they form too few circles and meet in large groups that don't use their time well because they are not focused enough. Finding the right fit of roles, circles, and information flow is a "dance" that takes some practice!
The Mission Circle The General Circle will typically be busy with supporting the day-to-day work. Yet, organizations also need to keep an eye on their long-term wellbeing. To make sure that the organization is accountable to its overall mission and pays attention to longer-term decisions and strategies, a separate circle holds the mission in its domain: the Mission Circle. (You can also call it the Purpose Circle, Anchor Circle, the board, Elder Circle, Wisdom Circle, ...) The Mission Circle will ideally have members from outside the organization so fresh and new ideas can flow into the organization. As usual, the Mission Circle is double linked with two people being part of Mission Circle and of the General Circle.
Information flow + feedback Remember that decisions are decentralized in sociocracy! For example, it's well possible that the Membership Circle might be a sub-sub-circle and still has the power to set the membership fee for everyone in the organization. The reason this works is because of the clear pattern of aims and domains that give very defined "pieces" of authority and responsibility to clearly defined groups. Another factor is that the decisions are not made by a random circle but by the circle of people who do the work related to that circle. However, each circle is responsible not only for the work and well-being in its own domain but also for getting feedback from the rest of the organization so that decisions made in the circle align well with the other decisions in other circles and support everyone in the organization in their work. One can hear feedback from a lot of people so that lots of input is heard, especially from those affected by the decisions and those who are particularly knowledgeable. This rich information can then be processed and turned into decisions by a circle with a manageable circle size of ideally 4 to 8 people.
Three phases Selection are a simple 3-process with a few sub-steps. 1. Understand the role. qualifications. Having a look at the "box" so we understand what's needed 2. Explore options. nominations. Brainstorming of ideas to know what/who could fit into the box 3. Make a decision. consent . Finalizing the decision of how to fill the "box
Circles, aims & domains. Decisions in sociocracy are made in circles - each circle makes its own decisions. Circles typically have 4-8 members. How do we know what decision is made by which circle? We know that because, as part of our circle structure, we define what circle has what domain. Then every circle is able to make decisions in its domain autonomously, which means without having to ask anyone else. Each circle also has an aim: a description of what the circle does. The aim and the domain come as a package deal: you get responsibility and authority together so that those who do the work in that domain also have the authority to act.

Related articles

 A free video course that leads you through drawing your own structure.

The Sociocratic Selection Process

(Excerpt from the booklet. For a full version, download the booklet!)

The Sociocratic Selection Process
The selection process. The most common use of the selection process is to select people into roles so we will focus on those. There are other uses of the selection process in the later part of this booklet. In order to select people into roles, the roles have to exist. It's like one can only put things into boxes if the boxes are built!
Propose a candidate and find consent The facilitator now proposes a candidate based on the nominations (or asks someone else to make the proposal). In the proposal, the facilitator also determines the term for which the person would fill the role. The circle will now see if everyone in the circle consents to this candidate. If there is consent, the person is elected into the role. As always, if there are objections, they get integrated. Common objections and integrations There are a lot of options! * "XX doesn't have enough experience" * provide more practice or training * shorten the term * nominate someone else * "XX doesn't have enough time" * shorten the term * free them up (give other responsibilities to someone else) * split the role in a meaningful way
Exploring the options The group now explores who might be a good fit for the role. Nomination. Everyone thinks for a moment who they'd like to nominate. People can also self-nominate. Nomination round. In a round, everyone shares who they nominated and why. Change round. In another round, everyone gets an opportunity to change their nomination.
Understanding the role What is the role you're filling. * If there is a role description, we re-read it to make sure we understand it (assuming we've approved the role itself already). * If there is no role description (like often for circle roles like the facilitator), we describe it verbally. We make list of qualifications that we'd like to see in the person in the role. (Rounds work well for that!) We make sure to consent to the list to make sure everyone is good with the criteria
Tips and tricks When it comes to nominations, sometimes people say things like "well, I AM not going to be the leader because I am so bad at it". This is sad and can close doors too early. We've seen many people who are able and willing to step into leadership positions when they get nominated for good reasons and affirmed. To avoid that people take themselves out of the equation too early, we encourage people to speak who they do nominate, not who they don't nominate.
Selection processes for other than roles Roles and people are not the only way to use the selection process. It can be used for any situation where we have to choose among possible options. When you can use the selection process: * Selecting a theme or a venue for a conference * Selecting a money amount we donate or an amount we charge for a certain offering * Selecting what book to read in a book club * Selecting activities into time slots The qualifications in those cases sound different from qualifications for people in roles. For example: "can be reached by public transportation", "affordable", "social justice topic" or "can be done by all age groups". You can even use the selection process to select topics into a sorted list of priorities!
Benefits and challenges Most people appreciate how affirming the process is. It's often a sweet feedback moment of appreciation. Yet, for some people, it is unfamiliar and uncomfortable to speak about each other in front of each other, even if it's positive. Some also struggle if they are nominated or if they are not nominated. In our experience, any discomfort fades over time as the team builds trust with each other and the process.

Related articles

  • Selection process. A deeper description of the selection process, including many frequently asked questions about selections.

See a selection process

 

Meetings with sociocracy

(Excerpt from the booklet. For a full version, download the booklet!)

Meetings with sociocracy
Opening: Check in
Basic meeting format Opening. Check-in. ADMIN (ca. 10 min) Making sure people and circle are ready for the meeting Content. Agenda setting. Agenda items. Backlog. Creating clarity for the circle's work Closing. Check out (= meeting evaluation) (ca. 10 min). Evaluating the meeting so meetings improve over time.
What's a 'good' meeting? Meetings are often dreaded. They can take a long time, they can be frustrating and sluggish. But it doesn't have to be that way! Sociocratic meetings are often faster and more efficient than "ordinary" meetings - and more fun! This booklet will walk you through the different tools and steps. A good meeting is * Effective and efficient: it leads you to outcomes you want to have; within a time frame that's reasonable. * Connecting: the team trusts each other and feels safe with each other. * Inclusive: every team member's voice is heard.
Content: Consent to agenda Before we can jump into the meeting content, we need to make an agreement on what topics we will be talking about, what we are hoping to achieve on each topic, and how long we think that will take. If someone prepared a proposed agenda, we review it to make sure everyone can give informed consent, and then we accept the agenda by consent. If there are objections to the agenda, we integrate them until we have consent. * Present the proposed agenda and answer all questions * Ask for consent from everyone on the agenda and integrate objections Possible objections * "XYZ has to leave early, can we switch the order so she can be here for this item?" * "This agenda is too full, we have to make choices" * "Agenda item xyz is not within our domain."
Opening: ADMIN Make sure everyone and everything is ready for the meeting with this checklist: Attendance: who is present? Who is missing? Who is writing notes? Duration: How long is this meeting? Does anyone have to leave early? Minutes: Are our prior meeting minutes up to date, approved and shared or stored? Information: Is there anything else people want to share, like an announcement? Next meeting: Is there a next meeting date? If not, is there a plan on when and how the circle is coming to a next meeting date?
Closing: Check-out (meeting evaluation) Way too often, people just roll their eyes about a meeting and move on to the next thing in their day. While that is understandable, the problem is this: the following meetings will be the same! We can improve our meetings - and our ways to collaborate overall - if we create a healthy feedback culture. Meeting evaluations are a great place for that! You can comment on * Process. (time management, taking turns, facilitation) * Content of the meeting . (a decision made that you're happy with, or an issue that worries you) * Interpersonal dynamics (how connected did you feel? Anything you need to share to leave with integrity?)
Content: Backlog Often, new topics come up during a meeting. We try to focus on the issue at hand but note down the new issue and write it onto our backlog. The backlog is then used to plan the next agenda. That way, all meetings follow a common thread, and we keep our shared aim in mind.
Content: Agenda items Now comes the content part of the meeting. * In reports, someone gives information about something everyone in the circle needs to know, and then people can ask questions to make sure the information is understood. * In explorations, there is typically a question or an issue. Someone describes what that question or issue is, and then we explore in rounds our reactions or ideas. Sometimes that's all that's needed. * If a decision is needed, we make that decision by consent. That means a decision is made when no circle member objects. Rounds. If you attend a sociocratic meeting, you will notice that a lot of the talking happens in rounds: people talk one by one. We do that to make sure ... * everyone gets to speak (not only a few) * people listen to each other (instead of interrupting each other) * we always know what we're talking about
Agenda planning A meeting can work without a planned agenda, as long as the group makes an agreement in step "Agenda setting" before they start diving into topics. Yet, a prepared agenda often helps be more intentional about how we move forward through our topics. It only takes a few minutes to avoid spinning our wheels as a group! The proposed agenda is prepared by the facilitator or leader, or someone else in the group. Then the group can modify if there are objections. The proposed agenda will include agenda topics from the backlog - the living document holding future agenda items. If we notice during a meeting that we need to shift gears (for example, we don't consent easily, a new and more important topic comes up, or we run out of time, then the agenda can be adjusted on the fly - with everyone's consent.
Where do proposals come from? In our experience, co-created proposals are the best! Everyone puts their heads together, and the final result is a blend of everyone's best thinking. Yet, in many situations, it can make sense for a proposal to not be co-created but developed and written up by one person who has the energy to move the issue forward. In that case, the circle would need to process the proposal in a regular consent process. It's good practice to ask for a lot of feedback early in the process. You can ask for input on each step along the way.
Writing proposals. One of the most powerful moments is when a group tackles a complex issue, explores and listens well, solves it together, and then approves the decision with wholehearted consent. Proposals are a good ways to focus our energy and attention and get specific - and it's that clarity that unleashes action and forward motion. Before there's a proposal on the table, groups are often just bouncing around, exploring this, weighing that.

Related articles

See the recording of a full meeting

Creating clarity with co-created proposals

(Excerpt from the booklet. For a full version, download the booklet!)

Creating clarity with co-created proposals
2. Exploring ideas: proposal shaping. The next step is to write down specific ideas for each headline or dimension. Example: Proposal ideas I think we should... * have working and supporting members * charge $100 membership fee * Onboarding: sign the value and code of conduct; fill out membership form * membership limited to people in Hampshire County 2.
1. Understanding the scope: dimensions When a group is eager to brainstorm ideas to solve a problem, they often get caught up in details too soon. For more thorough proposals, we start with a list of all the considerations we have to keep in mind to solve the problem. We think of the as headlines we need to elaborate on. For example, if we want to define the membership and membership processes in an organization, this list shows some of the dimensions. Dimensions. What are we going to do about... * different membership categories * membership fee * onboarding * who can be a member? (requirements) ...
Writing proposals together What problem are we trying to solve? 1. Understanding the scope of solutions. (Dimensions) After we understand the issue, we generate a proposal in 3 steps 2. Exploring proposal ideas (Proposal shaping) 3. Synthesizing (proposal ideas). Turn into one proposal Approve the proposal. We use the consent process to approve the proposal
Role descriptions As mentioned earlier, roles are clusters of tasks and responsibilities that are typically held by one person in the circle. The role description specifies what the role entails. Roles can be focused on the circle's process (like the role of a facilitator) or on operations (like the Membership Onboarding Manager). Most typically, a role description is written and approved by the circle. Then a person is selected into the role by consent, often using the selection process. Earlier, we described roles as a "box" that we then fill with a person. Sometimes, roles are also described as "hats" that one can wear or pass on.
3. Synthesizing proposal ideas One person or a small group now distills the proposal ideas into one proposal. The proposal can be checked for consent now! Proposal There are 2 membership categories: working and supporting members. The membership fee is $100/year. All members need to live in Hampshire County. To join, a prospective member submits the membership form and signs the value statement and the code of conduct.
Tips and tricks Here's a very healthy flow through a decision: * Meeting #1: bring up an issue and surface all the information about the topic. ("What problem are we trying to solve?") * Meeting #2: brainstorm ideas on the topic and come up with dimension and proposal ideas. * Between meetings #2 and #3, someone writes up the proposal ideas into a proposal. * Meeting #3: use the consent process on the proposal (present the proposal, quick reactions and consent/objections) With this pacing, everyone has time to think together making good use of meeting time and time between meetings. Of course, groups might also go through the whole process in one go! Do you find the step-by-step template useful? See the book Who Decides Who Decides for templates on how to start a group!
Writing role descriptions Writing role descriptions works like writing other proposals - even simpler because most dimensions are always the same: Dimensions What are we going to do about... * activities * pay? * hours per week * performance metrics * workflows/guidelines * ... Proposal ideas I think the role holder should... * Orient new members and make sure all documents are signed; reach out to potential members * $25/hour * 10h/week * 10 new members/week * onboarding workflow; membership requirements (People might propose different proposal ideas that still need to be synthesized. )
Feedback and performance We come together in organizations to work towards a shared aim in support of a mission we're passionate about. What good would all the work we do be if what we're doing isn't working? Taking our own aims seriously also means taking our performance seriously. And that means we need to evaluate whether our actions are effective. And this is true on all levels: * on the microlevel when we evaluate meetings just one hour after embarking on the meeting * project evaluations like after holding an event * but also for role performance reviews after one year, or policy reviews after 2 years... * ... or to an aim review every few years.

Related articles

Watch a demo video on writing proposals together

 

Feedback and improvement

(Excerpt from the booklet. For a full version, download the booklet!)

Feedback and improvement
Feedback moments In everyday life, it's easy to skip evaluations because we get too busy. To improve our own accountability by evaluating feedback sociocracy builds "feedback moments" into our workflows and standard processes. That way, feedback has a place and time. * Meeting evaluations at the end of every meeting * Policy reviews for every policy, workflow, and role. (Every policy has a term end to enforce evaluation of the policy.) * Performance reviews for people in roles * Selection processes (feedback given in nominations) * Aim reviews
Lead - do - measure Sociocracy uses a common frame: 1. make plans (lead) 2. carry out the plans (do) 3. evaluate the outcomes (measure) Most groups and organizations are great at making plans and often focused on carrying out their plans. It's very common that they don't put enough energy into evaluation and reflection - like flying with your eyes closed!
Why does feedback matter? Even with the best plans, things often don't quite work out as imagined. With more uncertainty and complexity inside and outside of our organizations, our plans become less likely to become a perfect reality. Consent decision-making is pragmatic and biased towards action because only action lets us learn how our plans play out in reality. Instead of trying to predict and control future outcomes, we make decisions that give us information on outcomes. Then we continue from there. The mindset of consent as good-enough-for-now-and-safe-enough-to-try comes in a package deal with evaluating performance. Accepting that we can't predict the future means we need to shift our strategy. track feedback and adjust as needed.
Personal feedback. The importance of feedback also carries over to personal relationships. How? Imagine someone has a habit of talking very fast working with someone who is hard of hearing. Between them, some information might get lost. The point here is not to find out whose "fault" it is - very often, everyone involved is contributing to a non-ideal pattern. The important thing is to share those observations or concerns so we can work out how issues can be avoided. Sociocracy itself doesn't prescribe on how to communicate; yet, since sociocracy values effective-ness, any way to communicate that makes it more likely to be heard and understood improves communication. Good listening and the ability to express things without blame are key here.
Circle accountability All the different parts of the feedback cycle depend on accountability. For example, if we integrate an objection by saying that we will evaluate a certain practice in 4 weeks, then this evaluation actually has to happen. Dates, metrics, and follow-ups need to be tracked. The culture of paying attention to feedback therefore heavily depends on good systems and commitment to the culture and processes.
Feedback vs. decision-making In sociocracy, we try to keep circle sizes to ~4-8 people. Those circle members are the decision-makers in their circle's domain. But that doesn't mean only those 4-8 people can give input on a decision. If a circle commits to taking in feedback from outside of the circle, they can potentially hear thousands of people's input. Getting feedback comes in many forms. They can put out surveys, send out drafts, invite people to their meetings, attend a stakeholders' gathering, read and write in online forums. The more feedback they hear, the better their decisions will be.
Tips and tricks In our mainstream culture, blame-free feedback is rare - most of us still have lots to learn in this area. If giving honest personal feedback seems intimidating or even impossible, it is worth having a look at complementary techniques like Nonviolent Commu-nication, Clean Language or Imago. Nonviolent Communication, for example, helps us uncover and name what's underneath our feelings so it can be shared in a universal language of needs. Thanks to the effectiveness and efficiency of needs consciousness, NVC provides a shortcut in understanding and empathy for oneself and for others. Our needs will give rise to feelings and will have an influence over what we say or think.
Performance reviews and circle reviews Performance reviews help us be intentional about giving high-quality feedback to a person in a role. In a performance review, a group is assembled that is able to provide a 360º assessment of a given focus person's performance - oftentimes from several circles where that focus person holds a role. In the end, the assessment circle and the focus person need to approve the improvement plan. Other processes * Performance reviews for a whole team. Same process, just that the focus is the whole circle * Circle reviews: every member of a circle gives feedback to every member. A understanding the role(s) + performance. drafting improvement plan B areas of improvement? specific ideas to work on? What is this person asked to do? What has been working well/not so well? C consent to the improvement plan

Related articles

Sociocracy articles and videos

What are you interested in?

Sociocracy & Permaculture: Grow Engagement with Systems Design: John Buck

Sociocracy & Permaculture: Grow Engagement with Systems Design: John Buck

Sociocracy & Permaculture: Grow Engagement with Systems Design: John Schinnerer

Sociocracy & Permaculture: Grow Engagement with Systems Design: John Schinnerer

Sociocracy & Permaculture: Grow Engagement with Systems Design: Henny Freitas & Rakesh Rootsman Rak

Sociocracy & Permaculture: Grow Engagement with Systems Design: Henny Freitas & Rakesh Rootsman Rak

Sociocracy & Permaculture: Grow Engagement with Systems Design: Andreas Jonsson

Sociocracy & Permaculture: Grow Engagement with Systems Design: Andreas Jonsson

Sociocracy & Permaculture: Grow Engagement with Systems Design: Welcome!

Sociocracy & Permaculture: Grow Engagement with Systems Design: Welcome!

Roles, jobs and salaries in sociocracy

Roles, jobs and salaries in sociocracy

Communities: going from consensus to sociocracy

Communities: going from consensus to sociocracy

Sociocracy in forming communities

Sociocracy in forming communities

“What if people don’t cooperate?” A systemic view of meetings

“What if people don’t cooperate?” A systemic view of meetings

Aligned and alive. Strategy in decentralized organizations

Aligned and alive. Strategy in decentralized organizations

How to run an engaging board meeting

How to run an engaging board meeting

Anything that makes positive change in the world

Anything that makes positive change in the world

Sociocracy – basic concepts and principles

Sociocracy – basic concepts and principles

The tragedy of the meeting: Meeting time as an example of a common pool resource

The tragedy of the meeting: Meeting time as an example of a common pool resource

Leadership in sociocracy

Leadership in sociocracy

The ABCDE of culture change

The ABCDE of culture change

How could Sociocracy help us reinvent our world in a context of complexity?

How could Sociocracy help us reinvent our world in a context of complexity?

Case study: Prairie Hill Cohousing

Case study: Prairie Hill Cohousing

Case study: Grobund

Case study: Grobund

Børns Vilkår: switching from slow decision-making

Børns Vilkår: switching from slow decision-making

Share25
Tweet
Share
25 Shares
25 Shares
Share25
Tweet
Share