SOCIOCRACYPursuit of great decisions, fast

Qaiser Mazhar

Tech Lead - Team Odin

MAKING DECISIONS IS HARD

• Group of perfectionists

• Diverse backgrounds

• Multiple directions and drivers

• Traditionally difficult to change direction

• Expense of knowingly taking on tech debt

• Want to produce stable long term value

CONSENSUS IS GREAT RIGHT…. RIGHT?

• Consensus doesn’t scale well past a small tightly knit group

• A high level of commitment and time is required for consensus to be an effective

route to agreeable decisions

• Easy to fall into a trap of analysis paralysis

• In larger groups such as a whole department, it is impossible to make all members

happy

WHAT IS SOCIOCRACY?

• Method of governance that ensures inclusiveness, accountability, transparency, and

productivity

• Structure that both involves all members of the organization in policy decision

making and produces a strong and efficient decision-making environment

• Incorporates the best of the last 100 years of management theory

• Acknowledges human nature and the pursuit of happiness has a significant influence

on business performance

• Key principles lend themselves very well to agile methodology

HISTORY OF SOCIOCRACY

• Founded in 19th century France by Philosopher Auguste Comte

• Introduced to America by Sociologist Lester Ward

• If society could be guided by the will and intellect of all individuals combined, society

would become the greatest force ever known

• Kees Boeke implemented the principles in his school in 1930’s Holland

• Gerard Endenburg has run his company for the past 50 years after studying under

Kees. His company is exempt from the requirement of labour unions due to the way

the company is run

FOUR GOVERNING PRINCIPLES

• Circle organisation structure

• Consent governs decision making

• Double linking promotes strong enough communication bonds between circles

• Selection of people in open discussion to roles and responsibilities

ORGANIZATION STRUCTURE

• In a hierarchical organisation, policy and communication flows downwards

• The majority of employees do not feel empowered to contribute to decisions that

directly affect them or contribute to problems they are close to

• Sociocracy builds circles of people that have high autonomy and sharing of

knowledge within their domain (think micro organisations)

• Inclusion of all members means people are the organisation rather than it being a

separate entity that must be adhered to (think self organising teams)

• Circles have their own aims and designate functions to their members

ORGANIZATION STRUCTURE

ORGANIZATION STRUCTURE

CONSENT

• Make decisions through consent not consensus

• Valid objections are welcome and considering better solutions is encouraged within the

eye of forward movement

• A paradigm shift in thinking, the speaker is not driven to prove to others that they are

correct, others object if things are wrong

• Objections are valid if the proposed solution is flawed or a viable alternative is materially

better

• Ongoing evaluation improves solutions, avoid first pass perfection

• Not all decisions require consent, these cases are enabled by consent

DOUBLE LINKING

• For wider reaching decisions, a functional leader and an internal representative of

each circle share information and make decisions on behalf of a circle

• Moving away from top down command and control structures

• Heterarchies perform like a lattice or spider’s web

• Nodes can be connected to surrounding nodes without needing to go through or

getting permission from some other node

REPRESENTATIVE SELECTION

• Clear expectations of leaders and members charged with responsibilities so all know

what is expected of them (think contracting sessions)

• Highly affirming, people are openly appreciated and acknowledged for their

strengths

• Representation of a group is by trust and not power, unpleasantness is eliminated

• Friction is reduced and productivity increases since everyone accepts the final

selection as the best choice

• Representatives should rotate based on different aims, best person forward for a

specific goal

BENEFITS

• Efficient knowledge transfer, utilises collective knowledge of whole organisation

• Concerns are heard and respected, trust is built

• Happy, fulfilled and empowered people that do not feel left out

• Promotes creative thinking by everyone in the organisation

• Effective, flatter, responsive, transparent and productive organisations

• Greater innovation and risk taking, quicker buy in as decisions are continuously

evaluated

• Higher productivity and profitability

DISADVANTAGES

• It takes time to adjust to a paradigm shift in practice

• Old ways of doing things are hard to let go of

• People may become uncomfortable at first as they become accustomed to sharing

the responsibility of difficult decisions

DECISION MAKING IN TEAM ODININTERNAL TEAM DECISIONS

• Problem identified

• Pair picking up task become problem owners

• Investigation is conducted

• Key stakeholders/experts consulted

• Results and initial conclusions shared with team

• Objections raised

• Objections addressed

• Problem owner makes decision and disseminates conclusions to all affected

DECISION MAKING IN TEAM ODINWIDE REACHING DECISIONS

• Problem identified

• Problem owner identified

• Open audience meeting to frame problem and discuss potential solutions

• Key stakeholders/experts identified

• Key solutions identified

• Closed discussion with key stakeholders/experts on key solutions

• Problem owner makes decision and disseminates conclusions to all affected

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Avoid “first pass perfection”, aim for continuous improvement

• Make objections to things you think are wrong, give consent to proposals that are

viable

• The internal and external decision making process is evolving and improving very

quickly