Category: Decisions and Power

Sociocracy has specific methods and practices for ensuring  that decision-making and power are linked and shared. Democracy was originally revolutionary by allowing the common citizen to make decisions using majority vote to make decisions. But it has no structure for ensuring that those decisions are implemented. A sociocratic system of communications and control would ensure better decision-making and give more power to democratic values.

Stand Asides

Stand asides are a time-honored practice in majority vote decision-making. They are used when a person wants their vote recorded, but can’t vote yes, doesn’t want to vote no, and doesn’t want to abstain. Usually it means the person disagrees but has agreed to stand aside and allow the decision to go forward. Sometimes it means that they have a conflict of interest and want the record to show that they were not voting, but… Read More . . . “Stand Asides”

“Blocks” & Vetos in Consensus Decision-Making

Picture of a Cement Block I find the word block in consensus decision-making destructive. It is particularly counter-productive when used to refer to all objections, rather than seemingly unresolvable objections. Objections do feel like blocks when after hours of discussion a person or persons will not consent — I find myself feeling this too. And sometimes when I object, in my gut I really want to block. I don’t want to argue the point, I just want to BLOCK. The… Read More . . . ““Blocks” & Vetos in Consensus Decision-Making”

Resistance to Rounds

I love rounds. They do many things but the most important to me is that they give everyone a chance to speak without raising their hand and waving it until the facilitator or discussion leader sees it, worrying about their place in the queue rather than listening, or  counting to see if everyone else has had a chance to speak before you can speak again. Rounds place the focus on what is being said, not… Read More . . . “Resistance to Rounds”

Objections: Paramount, Principled, or Otherwise

In decision-making, one consents or one objects. Consent is defined as no objections. To object means no consent It’s very simple. Consent has no modifiers so why should objections? No one asks for paramount or principled consent. What would paramount consent be? Would we ask, “Are you consenting because this proposed action is the most important thing in the world right now?” Do we examine the basis on which people are consenting? No, we don’t.… Read More . . . “Objections: Paramount, Principled, or Otherwise”

Vision, Mission, and Aim

Having a vision, mission, and aim are very important in bringing coherence to your organization. You can call them by different names but combining them or collapsing them is not the best idea. It can lead to confusion and allow you to miss or avoid one or another of them. And the different names may confuse you as well. Vision The vision is your dream. What you want the world to be. On a grand… Read More . . . “Vision, Mission, and Aim”

Equating Consensus and Non-Violent Communication (NVC) with Governance

Often heard: “We don’t use sociocracy or dynamic governance; we use consensus.” Or, “We don’t use dynamic governance; we use non-violent communication (NVC). The simple problem with these oppositions is that neither consensus nor NVC are governance methods. They don’t come with a set of principles or practices for structuring an organization, managing operations, and ensuring that the appropriate people are making the necessary decisions. Consensus is a method for making decisions, just like majority… Read More . . . “Equating Consensus and Non-Violent Communication (NVC) with Governance”