Best for families, communities that want to live in more
harmonious. Who want to focus in responsability, right-placement
and values rather than projects.
For social organisms that shift power to a group of people.
Three main rules:
"First, the interests of all members must be considered, the
individual bowing to the interests of the whole.
Second, no action can be taken if there are no solutions found that
everyone can accept.
Third, all members must be ready to act according to these
unanimous decisions."
The aim of sociocracy is inclusive decision-making because it has
proven to be more effective. Both consensus and consent are
collaborative processes that result in unified, harmonious actions.
There are, however, two valuable distinctions:
(1) The cognitive difference between asking for "agreement" and
asking for "no objections" is profound. Consensus facilitators are
more likely to be searching for agreement. Sociocratic facilitators
specifically look for objections within defined parameters. Asking
for agreement affects the perception of participants, often
adversely, and influences the kinds of solutions they will propose
or accept. To hone a good decision, all the objections must be
examined carefully.
(2) Consensus is specifically a decision-making process and as such
is heavily dependent on the skills of the facilitator and the
experience of the group. Groups using consensus have no predictable
structure for the execution of decisions and must design their own,
often building on structures designed to support majority vote
decision-making and based on parliamentary procedure. The
sociocratic governance structure is specifically designed to
support inclusive decision-making and is based on principles
derived from cybernetics, systems theory, and complexity theory
from which the concept of consent is also derived. Thus the theory
base of sociocratic governance and decision-making is more
consistent. Good article about this distinctions at:
http://www.communicatingwithcompassion.org/content/consent%20and%20consensus.htm
Sociocracy doesn´t have roles accountabilities or gives a
'governance structure' as holacracy.
Sociocracy was built upon the question of 'how can we make
decisions that take care of the needs of everyone involved?'
Looking for deeper democracy. Focus in the people to integrate and
come together. Human-centered values.
1. Decision Making by Consent: Consent is a method of
decision-making whereby the arguments presented in discussing a
decision are of paramount importance, and the result of the
discussion is that no one present knows of a paramount reason to
continue discussion before proceeding with the proposed decision.
Note: this is consent, not consensus.
2. Circle Organization: The organization is built of a
hierarchy of semi-autonomous circles. Each circle has its own aim,
given by the higher-level circle, and has the authority and
responsibility to execute, measure, and control its own processes
to move towards its aim.
3. Double-Linking: A lower circle is always linked to the
circle above it via at least two people who belong to and take part
in the decision making of both the higher circle and the lower
circle. One of these links is the person with overall
accountability for the lower-level circle's results, and the other
is a representative elected from within the lower-level circle.
4. Elections by Consent: People are elected to key roles
exclusively by consent after open discussion (this is not a
democratic majority-vote election!). Most notably, the election
process applies to the representative elected from a lower-level
circle to a higher-level circle.
Everybody elects people for certain roles. People vote and then if
you are elected they ask if you do want to do it. This election
gives the power to move more fluidity to make decisions and do what
you have to do.
Sociocracy was built upon the question of 'how can we make
decisions that take care of the needs of everyone involved?'
Looking for deeper democracy. Focus in the people to integrate and
come together. Human-centered values.
1. Decision Making by Consent: Consent is a method of
decision-making whereby the arguments presented in discussing a
decision are of paramount importance, and the result of the
discussion is that no one present knows of a paramount reason to
continue discussion before proceeding with the proposed decision.
Note: this is consent, not consensus.
2. Circle Organization: The organization is built of a
hierarchy of semi-autonomous circles. Each circle has its own aim,
given by the higher-level circle, and has the authority and
responsibility to execute, measure, and control its own processes
to move towards its aim.
3. Double-Linking: A lower circle is always linked to the
circle above it via at least two people who belong to and take part
in the decision making of both the higher circle and the lower
circle. One of these links is the person with overall
accountability for the lower-level circle's results, and the other
is a representative elected from within the lower-level circle.
4. Elections by Consent: People are elected to key roles
exclusively by consent after open discussion (this is not a
democratic majority-vote election!). Most notably, the election
process applies to the representative elected from a lower-level
circle to a higher-level circle.
Everybody elects people for certain roles. People vote and then if
you are elected they ask if you do want to do it. This election
gives the power to move more fluidity to make decisions and do what
you have to do.
1. Decision Making by Consent: Consent is a method of
decision-making whereby the arguments presented in discussing a
decision are of paramount importance, and the result of the
discussion is that no one present knows of a paramount reason to
continue discussion before proceeding with the proposed decision.
Note: this is consent, not consensus.
2. Circle Organization: The organization is built of a
hierarchy of semi-autonomous circles. Each circle has its own aim,
given by the higher-level circle, and has the authority and
responsibility to execute, measure, and control its own processes
to move towards its aim.
3. Double-Linking: A lower circle is always linked to the
circle above it via at least two people who belong to and take part
in the decision making of both the higher circle and the lower
circle. One of these links is the person with overall
accountability for the lower-level circle's results, and the other
is a representative elected from within the lower-level circle.
4. Elections by Consent: People are elected to key roles
exclusively by consent after open discussion (this is not a
democratic majority-vote election!). Most notably, the election
process applies to the representative elected from a lower-level
circle to a higher-level circle.
The aim of sociocracy is inclusive decision-making because it has
proven to be more effective. Both consensus and consent are
collaborative processes that result in unified, harmonious actions.
There are, however, two valuable distinctions:
(1) The cognitive difference between asking for "agreement" and
asking for "no objections" is profound. Consensus facilitators are
more likely to be searching for agreement. Sociocratic facilitators
specifically look for objections within defined parameters. Asking
for agreement affects the perception of participants, often
adversely, and influences the kinds of solutions they will propose
or accept. To hone a good decision, all the objections must be
examined carefully.
(2) Consensus is specifically a decision-making process and as such
is heavily dependent on the skills of the facilitator and the
experience of the group. Groups using consensus have no predictable
structure for the execution of decisions and must design their own,
often building on structures designed to support majority vote
decision-making and based on parliamentary procedure. The
sociocratic governance structure is specifically designed to
support inclusive decision-making and is based on principles
derived from cybernetics, systems theory, and complexity theory
from which the concept of consent is also derived. Thus the theory
base of sociocratic governance and decision-making is more
consistent. Good article about this distinctions at:
http://www.communicatingwithcompassion.org/content/consent%20and%20consensus.htm
system" as having three rules:
"First, the interests of all members must be considered, the
individual bowing to the interests of the whole.
Second, no action can be taken if there are no solutions found that
everyone can accept.
Third, all members must be ready to act according to these
unanimous decisions."
The aim of sociocracy is inclusive decision-making because it has
proven to be more effective. Both consensus and consent are
collaborative processes that result in unified, harmonious actions.
There are, however, two valuable distinctions:
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
(1) The cognitive difference between asking for "agreement" and
asking for "no objections" is profound. Consensus facilitators are
more likely to be searching for agreement. Sociocratic facilitators
specifically look for objections within defined parameters. Asking
for agreement affects the perception of participants, often
adversely, and influences the kinds of solutions they will propose
or accept. To hone a good decision, all the objections must be
examined carefully.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
(2) Consensus is specifically a decision-making process and as such
is heavily dependent on the skills of the facilitator and the
experience of the group. Groups using consensus have no predictable
structure for the execution of decisions and must design their own,
often building on structures designed to support majority vote
decision-making and based on parliamentary procedure. The
sociocratic governance structure is specifically designed to
support inclusive decision-making and is based on principles
derived from cybernetics, systems theory, and complexity theory
from which the concept of consent is also derived. Thus the theory
base of sociocratic governance and decision-making is more
consistent. Good article about this distinctions at:
http://www.communicatingwithcompassion.org/content/consent%20and%20consensus.htm
system" as having three rules:
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
"First, the interests of all members must be considered, the
individual bowing to the interests of the whole.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Second, no action can be taken if there are no solutions found that
everyone can accept.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Third, all members must be ready to act according to these
unanimous decisions."
1. Decision Making by Consent: Consent is a method of
decision-making whereby the arguments presented in discussing a
decision are of paramount importance, and the result of the
discussion is that no one present knows of a paramount reason to
continue discussion before proceeding with the proposed decision.
Note: this is consent, not consensus.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
2. Circle Organization: The organization is built of a hierarchy of
semi-autonomous circles. Each circle has its own aim, given by the
higher-level circle, and has the authority and responsibility to
execute, measure, and control its own processes to move towards its
aim.
.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
3. Double-Linking: A lower circle is always linked to the circle
above it via at least two people who belong to and take part in the
decision making of both the higher circle and the lower circle. One
of these links is the person with overall accountability for the
lower-level circle's results, and the other is a representative
elected from within the lower-level circle.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::4.
Elections by Consent: People are elected to key roles exclusively
by consent after open discussion (this is not a democratic
majority-vote election!). Most notably, the election process
applies to the representative elected from a lower-level circle to
a higher-level circle.
For social organisms that shift power to a group of people.
"First, the interests of all members must be considered, the individual bowing to the interests of the whole.
Second, no action can be taken if there are no solutions found that everyone can accept.
Third, all members must be ready to act according to these unanimous decisions."
(1) The cognitive difference between asking for "agreement" and asking for "no objections" is profound. Consensus facilitators are more likely to be searching for agreement. Sociocratic facilitators specifically look for objections within defined parameters. Asking for agreement affects the perception of participants, often adversely, and influences the kinds of solutions they will propose or accept. To hone a good decision, all the objections must be examined carefully.
(2) Consensus is specifically a decision-making process and as such is heavily dependent on the skills of the facilitator and the experience of the group. Groups using consensus have no predictable structure for the execution of decisions and must design their own, often building on structures designed to support majority vote decision-making and based on parliamentary procedure. The sociocratic governance structure is specifically designed to support inclusive decision-making and is based on principles derived from cybernetics, systems theory, and complexity theory from which the concept of consent is also derived. Thus the theory base of sociocratic governance and decision-making is more consistent. Good article about this distinctions at:
http://www.communicatingwithcompassion.org/content/consent%20and%20consensus.htm
Sociocracy doesn´t have roles accountabilities or gives a 'governance structure' as holacracy.