Sociocracy
Sociocracy is a governance system for organizations, guiding the processes of collective and individual decision-making. Its intention is to make decisions in a way that (a) are in the best interest of the organization and (b) design for shared power, without coercive power relationships.
First defined by Dutch engineer Gerard Endenburg, it was influenced by pacifist thinkers, Quaker decision making, natural systems and cybernetics. The word sets out the fundamental intention: socio-cracy = those who associate together govern. As a somewhat simplified version, it means that those who do things can decide about topics related to their work. Sociocracy in practice Rounds
The most noticeable practice is rounds: Meetings where most discussions are held by speaking one by one, making sure everyone speaks once before someone speaks again. The intention is to make sure everyone’s voice is heard; the practice also increases focus, intentionality, psychological safety. It levels domination and negative power dynamics. There are different kinds of rounds, depending on when in the process they are used:
Clarifying questions rounds are used to surface (and answer) questions about an issue, report, or proposal Reaction rounds are used for generative discussion, like feedback, idea generation, reflections. Consent rounds are used for the final step of decision making. Every member of a circle shares whether they are consenting or objecting to a given proposal for decision. (See section on consent.) Distributed decision making (circles) The goal is an organization where a lot of decisions are made in many places by many groups, all as equals. Circles are a way to have the division of labor line up with the division of decision-making. In practice, each circle has an aim (a definition of what it does) and a domain (what it can make decisions about). As a simple example, ideally, the circle that makes decisions about the garden is also the group that are the main planners and workers in that garden. Or those who do things for the website are also those who make the decisions about the website. To be clear on who holds what, a nested system is used: the circle in the center (often called General Circle) clarifies in mutual consent which main circle is holding what. Then those circles are free to pass on (again in local, mutual consent) what and how much they want to distribute further.
Whenever two circles are directly connected structurally, they are connected by one or ideally two people who attend both, a practice called double linking, shown by small dots in the diagram. Traditionally, each goes in another direction to ensure good alignment and coordination.
Besides ensuring information flow between both circles, it also establishes equal footing on power: the links would prevent an overreach of one circle over another - because any decision there would require all circle members’ consent, including linking persons. Consent Another key ingredient to make the system work is consent. Consent is very close to consensus but more clearly defined: a proposal is approved if no circle member has an objection. Having an objection means that a circle member raises that the proposal negatively impacts the circle’s activities as defined in the aim.
This sounds more complicated than it is! Let’s look at a quick example. Let’s say a gardening group has as its aim “growing food for the community.” Now someone wants to plant flowers that are pretty but aren’t edible and attract pests that would affect the vegetable plants. If someone proposed this garden bed, someone would hopefully object and point out that the flower proposal negatively impacts the original (and agreed-upon) intent of growing food. Under this aim, decorative flowers that don’t replace vegetables would be fine, of course.
This definition has several positive side effects:
It’s clear and pragmatic, a “good enough for now” approach where we don’t discuss a lot of options and opinions and talk until everyone wants the same thing, but run a basic alignment check between proposal and aim. Many groups experience that as liberating and a relief. Objections are not related to the person but to the shared aim; that means there are no factions or sides, and it’s much easier to stay aligned and together, in support of the common aim. Most decisions are made only for a certain time (term); this and the somewhat lower bar of decision-making support decision-making not based on theory but on practice where a group tries out and reviews decisions ongoingly. Processes
One of sociocracy’s key strengths lies in its toolbox of meeting processes that foster clarity, participation, and collective ownership. The consent process, often conducted in rounds, moves through clarifying questions, quick reactions, and finally consent or objections, with solutions to objections generated collectively. The selection process is used to fill roles within a circle—such as leader, delegate, facilitator, or secretary—through nominations, discussion, and consent, with flexibility to create other roles as needed (e.g., harvest coordinator, website admin). A consistent meeting format typically includes a check-in round, an administrative phase for housekeeping, consent to the agenda, discussion of agenda items, and a closing evaluation to suggest improvements, while also recording potential topics for future meetings in a “backlog” or “parking lot.” Proposal co-creation patterns harness the group’s collective intelligence to develop pragmatic proposals efficiently, while feedback processes—including meeting evaluations and performance or role reviews—offer structured opportunities to reflect on responsibilities, give constructive feedback, and co-create improvement plans that are consented to by all. Use of sociocracy Sociocracy is used in particular in worker-run nonprofits, intentional community, associations, networks and mid-sized business. The largest known implementations are the children’s and neighborhood parliaments in India. As a system, sociocracy is not owned, and there is an ecosystem of practices connected to it, with variations and sub-movements based on sociocracy, like Sociocracy. 3.0.
People often underestimate sociocracy’s transformational power in changing power dynamics radically to a peer level. Lack of training or superficial use often lead to an infusion of sociocracy with inherited power assumptions - like rebellion and desire for control which both don’t mix well with sociocracy and lead to tension and slow-downs. Another challenge in implementation is that it requires discipline and commitment to behavior change - for example for talking in rounds instead of interrupting others. Sources & References Endenburg, Gerard (1998). Sociocracy: The Organization of Decision Making. “No objection” as the Principle of Sociocracy. Eburon, Rotterdam. Ted Rau (2020). Sociocracy – basic concepts and principles. https://www.sociocracyforall.org/sociocracy/ Sociocracy 3.0: https://sociocracy30.org/ About the children’s parliaments. https://childrenparliament.org/ Ted Rau (2018). Sociocracy. The movement. https://enliveningedge.org/tools-practices/sociocracy-movement/ Buck, John and Sharon Villines (2007). We the People: Consenting to a Deeper Democracy. Rau, Ted and Jerry Koch-Gonzalez (2018). Many Voices One Song. Shared Power With Sociocracy. Sociocracy For All. The author Ted is an advocate, trainer and consultant for self-governance and (co)author of three books on self-governance, Many Voices One Song (2018), Who Decides Who Decides (2021), and Collective Power (2023). After his PhD in linguistics and work in Academia, he co-founded the membership organization Sociocracy For All in 2016 which has grown to 250 members with several international and topic-focused departments and action teams.