45. Sociocratic decision making (1)

The analysis of the disadvantages and limitations of both compromises and unilateral decisions makes it clear that we are looking for a better methodology. This should explicitly focus on the quality of the decision and at the same time the acceptance of those involved. This should be possible with a little common sense and a dose of discipline. The "sociocracy" as a concept offers a perfect inspiration here. The sociocratic associations that exist in the Scandinavian countries (apparently also in Canada and the Netherlands) demonstrate once again that the use of power that is embedded in leadership cultures is a cause of poor final quality in decision making, but that aside. We try to formulate our own "sociocratic alternative" as a method based on the sociocratic idea, completed with some practical experience.

"Democracy allows passions free rein,

and leaves no space for virtue. "

Plato

This methodology includes a number of basic rules. In summary, these are the following:

	SOCIOCRATIC DECISION-MAKING
1	Bring the right people to the table. Step-by-step participation according to the potential contribution, the role in the organization and the involvement. No replacing representatives.
2	Begin the discussion of complex problems with building a broad image. Then move on to judgment and decision making. Organize multiple meetings if needed.
3	Give extra attention to deviating (different / minority) ideas.
4	Listen actively to be sure that the message is correctly understood.
5	Look for elements that can improve the decision in each contribution.
6	If you find such a thing, name and confirm it explicitly. Make the connection with the objective. If not, thanks for the contribution, but park the idea.
7	Monitor targeting. Ask about relevance for the purpose. Marginalize preferences, interests and styles.
8	Reformulate the intermediate decisions each time they are enriched.
9	If there are no new contributions, ask the exception question: Who could not live with this conclusion, and why?
10	Process-related failures deserve priority
11	Do not tolerate sabotage (personal agendas, emotions, statements, ... )
12	In case of a dilemma, look for external reference points (possibly a working group or experts).
13	If time runs out, give an explicit mandate to a limited group.

Some elements deserve a brief explanation:

The ‘contribution’ element in point 1 is important. It means that people participate in a meeting or decision-making with a clear involvement in the subject and a well-defined potential and needed input. The mandate the have does not have to be total, in the sense that the decision or agreement also automatically binds the entire organization. If there is no careful mandate at the basis, the 'affected' people are excluded from participation, and that will subsequently be avenged by the support of the decisions taken. Working with representatives will therefore split participatory process is into two parts. Indeed, after the decision-making process, the mandator comes back to his group to not only report, but also to complete the participation process, by ‘selling’ the solution. The latter can, depending on the decisions taken, be quite difficult. It seems an unfair and unproductive methodology.

The mandated decision makers must work out the solutions with their know-how in the decision-making process . The entire group of decision-makers has the responsibility to complete the final phase of participation. If this is not done, and the decision-making is limited to ‘finding’ the solution in the small group of decision-makers, the second part is left to the mandates and a major impact on the final overall quality of the decision-making is missing. (2)

The 'image' in rule 2. Means that a complex problem must always be captured in a total picture. Initially, that can suffice in broad lines, details can be added afterwards. Artificially reducing complex problems to simple dilemmas is a sort of power maneuver, and is not appreciated by some co-decision makers. Especially if this conceals elements that are personally important to them, resistance is created, which is the more negative version of lack of acceptance.

It is only in the ‘judgment phase’ that a distinction is made between the important and the less important arguments and aspects. The transition to the next phase, formulating the decision, is best made by the chairman of the meeting. Only then will the contributions of the participants be synchronized into a useful whole. Lack of clarity and mixing of these phases obscures the decision-making process This is in line with the general rule: always make the process transparent. Chaos and contradictions take the trust away!

At rule 3. Different ideas are explicitly permitted and tested for their potential. This contributes greatly to final acceptance. After all, in this way no one will have the experience that their own ideas are pushed away by the game of power.

Rule 5. This rule focusses on the search for elements that improve the decision. This should of course not only be done by the chairman. As the entire group is better attuned to this methodology, everyone will make a contribution to this, and the chances of success will therefore increase. It is clear that the quality of the decision is monitored at this stage of the process.

Rule 6. will be contribute again explicitly, both to the intrinsic quality (which is the contribution to the objective or mission) and the acceptance (this is what I have contributed).

At rule 7 that is generalized again. Eliminating ‘preferences’ and ‘interests’ in particular is very difficult. These are two elements that might at first glance not threaten acceptance, but beware! The non-applicants of these elements are not happy with the fact that other decision makers can push through their preferences or interests. It therefore stimulates polarity, which we must reduce. The influence of preferences and interests on intrinsic quality is clearly negative. The link with the objective mission or common interest is then indeed completely subordinate to self-interest or subjective feelings. In ‘healthy’ decision making, an attempt is made to formulate decisions based on reliable knowledge that is brought together to a whole with rational links and a clear focus on relevant objectives. Everything that has a disruptive effect should be avoided. There is of course an important problem in the macro system in which one functions. If one has a context in which the interests are ‘clustered’ in in groups in advance, which moreover live on a tense basis for various reasons, it will of course become difficult to suddenly eliminate all these disadvantages at the time of decision-making. (This means that in every political system where the polarity between the parties is strong, the used sociocratic decision making will be difficult.)

At rule 9. The ‘exception question’ is asked, as an explicit way to avoid the polarity. If you ask who is ‘in favor’ and who is ‘against’, that again creates polarity. Once again, it invites you to weigh the hidden agendas and interests. The purpose of the exception question is to find out whether there is still an insight or knowledge that was not used in the present decision, and which is nevertheless important. It is therefore once again a test of intrinsic quality.

Rule 10. States that process-related failures must first be cleared before continuing. This goes back to general wisdom: if the process is wrong, the result will not be good either. Ignoring process failures and continuing is therefore something like sticking your head in the sand. And that is;  as is pretty broadly accepted, not very wise!

The ostrich that sticks its head in the sand,

has a much bigger problem than its limited visibility.

His bottom is a huge target.

(Ricardo Semler )

Hugo Der Kinderen

March 2019

(1) For inspiration: Endenburg Gerard, Sociocratie,: het organiseren van besluitvorming, Eburon , Delft, 2002,   

 (2)  See elsewhere for a description of participation methodologies like the ‘funnel technique’.