Consent decision-making
By Jennifer Rau, for SoFA (@)
Table of Contents
1.
Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1
a.
b.
c.
d.
2.
The way we make decisions.................................................................................................... 1
Consent ................................................................................................................................... 2
Range of tolerance .................................................................................................................. 3
What are objections? .............................................................................................................. 4
The consent process ....................................................................................................... 5
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
3.
Present the proposal ............................................................................................................... 5
Clarifying questions ................................................................................................................. 6
Quick reactions ....................................................................................................................... 8
Consent round ...................................................................................................................... 10
Announce decision ................................................................................................................ 11
How to deal with objections ......................................................................................... 11
a.
b.
4.
Push for consent early .......................................................................................................... 13
Options for dealing with objections ..................................................................................... 13
Seek understanding ................................................................................................................... 14
Revise content ........................................................................................................................... 16
Shorten the term ....................................................................................................................... 16
Measure the concern ................................................................................................................ 17
Preconditions of consent .............................................................................................. 18
5.
Facilitation .................................................................................................................... 21
a.
b.
What to do when you don’t know what to do ..................................................................... 21
“Informal consent rounds” ................................................................................................... 24
1. Introduction
a. The way we make decisions
In an autocratic system, one or only few people make a decision. Autocracy is a very simple
way of making a decision (at least in the short run). It is also fast. However, a clear challenge
of autocratic systems are a very low level of participation and inclusion. Team members
with a boss who makes autocratic decisions are very unlikely to show engagement in the
organization’s success. Commitment will be low, and so will innovation from the members.
Free to share for non-commercial use. See more free content, videos and sociocracy classes on
http://www.sociocracyforall.org/
Majority vote seems to be involving people, and we are used to considering majority vote
“fair”. Voting is also a fast process that can be done easily with many people and little
information. However, majority vote also means that up to 49.9% of the group will be
ignored. We are not gaining new information from the people who vote against, and the
level commitment is uncertain.
Consensus seems to be the most “fair” and inclusive way of making a decision. A decision
can only be made when everyone agrees. Commitment will be high, and so will
accountability and participation. On the flipside, consensus only works well in small,
homogenous groups. It hardly ever scales up to a larger group or organization. Consensus
is time-consuming and can be very frustrating and very likely to burn people out. If you
know you will have to get everybody to agree in a painful and tedious discussion before you
move forward with anything, how likely are you to introduce innovative ideas? It is the irony
of consensus, that historically, the ideas of “we are all peers who decide” was something
new but that consensus itself as a way of making decisions does not support giving rise to
new ideas.
b. Consent
Between all of those, what is consent? You can think of consent as a version of consensus.
The difference between consensus and consent continues to produce some controversy.
For some people, consensus is basically like consent. A fair statement would be that
consensus can be lived like consent but does not have to be lived that way. If your version
of consensus plays out similarly to consent, great. For many organizations, it is not. Consent
is more clearly defined, both in its process and conceptually. If you want to put a slogan on
it that makes the difference clear, one could say that in consensus, we ask everyone “do
you agree?”. In consent, we ask “do you object?”
In order to understand the large impact this little nuance will have, it is crucial to understand
the concept of “range of tolerance”.
Free to share for non-commercial use. See more free content, videos and sociocracy classes on
http://www.sociocracyforall.org/
c.
Range of tolerance
With range of tolerance we refer to everything that is not our preference but also not
something we would object to.
Your personal preference will be what you would choose if you made the decision by
yourself and for yourself. The area of objection is your “no way” zone. That’s everything
that you are not willing to go along with because it really interferes with doing your work.
(More about that in the next chapter.)
The range of tolerance is everything that might not be your preference but is something
you can work with. As a picky vegetarian, I might not prefer to eat Brussel sprouts (I would
not make them when cooking for myself) but I’ll eat them where they are there. I’d object
to meat, however,
Preferences and the ranges of tolerance differ between team members. That is why finding
agreement on what we are willing to work with is so crucial. If we were only able to work in
the area of overlap between personal preferences, it would be hard or even impossible to
find agreement. There is much more overlap if we work with the range of tolerance (which
includes the zone of the personal preferences).
Free to share for non-commercial use. See more free content, videos and sociocracy classes on
http://www.sociocracyforall.org/
This visualization illustrates that the area of overlap between “no objection” is much
considerately bigger than the overlap between personal preferences. In the same way, we
can think of it in decision-making. If we all had to agree, we would only make a few decisions
(and that translates to simple consensus, “everyone has to agree”). If we make decisions by
consent, we can make many more decision because we have much more room to work
with.
Decisions give us the opportunity to make changes and evaluate whether the changes mean
improvement, and give us more options to adapt to outside and inside changes. Without
new decisions made, we are stuck in our ways, and unable to respond to outside and inside
changes of our organization. In an every changing world, not being able to respond to
changes means the slow death for every organization.
d.
What are objections?
We need to understand the notion of an aim to understand how objections are being
defined. Aims capture what a circle (or an organization) is actually doing. Examples for aims
are “baking and selling healthy bread and pastry in N. Amherst”, or “running a safe and
holistic eldercare facility in Brattleboro”.
Free to share for non-commercial use. See more free content, videos and sociocracy classes on
http://www.sociocracyforall.org/
Objections are defined against an aim: a circle member objects to a proposal if they are
have reasons to assume that carrying out that proposal would harm the circle’s aim. For
instance, if a bakery coop decided to buy frozen products to bake and sell, a worker-owner
might object because selling ready-made products harms the bakery’s aim of “baking and
selling healthy bread and pastry”.
Objections in sociocracy are not a road block, however. Having options of how to move
forward by incorporating the objection is a true strength of sociocracy. See how to handle
objections in section.
2. The consent process
Now that we know what objections and consent are, let us look at the process of how we
get to consent in the easiest and most time-efficient way.
In the diagram below, you can see all the steps of the consent process. Each of the three
steps, presenting the proposal, working the proposal and announcing the decision has its
own purpose. Going through them step by step sounds time-consuming but really it
skipping steps that will cost you and your team time and nerves!
a.
Present the proposal
Presenting the proposal is important so everyone
knows what the proposal is.
This seems like a very obvious statement but still it is
not uncommon to miss it. By presenting the proposal
we mean: read it out loud, or find another way of
ensuring that everyone in the room knows what the
proposal says. Why is this so important? Just imagine
you have a meeting where you notice halfway through
that some are referring to earlier, revised versions of
the proposal. Oftentimes, especially after working on a proposal for a while, there are
several versions circulating, and it is very easy to lose track of what the current version is.
While we’re at it, avoid accepting a proposal into this process that has no actual wording!
Something in writing, just to have a basis to start from, will boost your circle’s productivity
significantly. Without something to work with, you are very likely to either waste time wordsmithing, or you will notice only after the meeting that really, you were not on the same
page. Then all your work during the meeting is undone. Just start out right, and avoid
backlashes in the first place.
Free to share for non-commercial use. See more free content, videos and sociocracy classes on
http://www.sociocracyforall.org/
Make a draft proposal accessible ahead of time, or allow enough time during the meeting
for circle members to read the proposal. Only when everyone is familiar with the proposal
you are ready for the next step.
b.
Clarifying questions
When everyone knows the proposal, circle members
are very likely to have questions. In this phase,
questions are asked that are necessary to understand
the proposal. This is not the place to question the
effectiveness of the proposal.
Clarifying questions are asked in rounds. Depending
on group size, on how many questions you are
expecting (and on how familiar or complex the
proposal is), you can choose to gather questions in a round first and then let the author(s)
answer the questions, or you can let the author or someone else answer questions one by
one as they are asked.
A good prompt to start a clarifying questions round is to ask the circle “what do you need
to know so you understand the proposal?” because focusing on understanding of the
proposal will not side track you into a discussion. To support circles even more in
distinguishing between their questions for understanding and their opinions about a
proposal, these are statements that will denote a clarifying question. If a group is new to
this process, it is supportive for everyone to use a statement like these.
1. “I understand the proposal. I have no questions.”
2. "I would like to have a better understanding of the proposal. Could you tell me more
about the part that says ‘_____’? “
3. "I would like to have a better understanding of the proposal. Could you tell me more
about what led you to include the part in the proposal that says ‘__________ ‘?”
The skit on the left illustrates the two steps “present proposal” and “clarifying questions”.
Free to share for non-commercial use. See more free content, videos and sociocracy classes on
http://www.sociocracyforall.org/
When all questions are answered, you can ask whether there are more questions that might
have come up after hearing other people’s questions.
Why do we do clarifying questions rounds? We make sure everyone understands the
proposal before we say what we think about it. If you skip this step, you might get to a
situation where people have judgements based on misunderstandings which will take the
Free to share for non-commercial use. See more free content, videos and sociocracy classes on
http://www.sociocracyforall.org/
whole group time to notice and clarify. It is less frustrating and time efficient to make sure
everyone understands before going to the next step.
c.
Quick reactions
In the quick reactions round, everyone gets a chance
to give their opinion on a proposal. It is important for
every contribution to be brief. Five sentences or less
is what a group should be aiming for. No worries, if
you have an objection you will have more time to
speak.
Here are some areas that can be touched on in quick
reactions.
• Whether you like the proposal or not ,as quick a “I like this proposal.”, or more
specific by saying why you like it. What problem is this decision going to solve in your
eyes? What makes you confident?
o "I support this proposal because I see it as compatible with my personal aim
to ________. I see this particularly in the part of the proposal that says
___________. “
o "I support this proposal because I understand it to support the organization’s
(aim to/value of) _______, particularly in the part of the proposal that says
__________.”
• You might say that you are planning to object. Keep it brief in the quick reaction
round - your time to explain your objection will come. For this round, a one-sentence
statement like the following is enough: "I do not support this proposal because I
don’t believe it effectively supports the organization’s (aim to/value of) ____,
particularly in the part of the proposal that says __________.”
• Appreciation for the author or the process, or other individuals who supported the
process
• You can use a quick-reaction round to suggest quick amendments.
o Improvements in wording
o Small changes that are in alignment with the proposal
Note that amendments change the proposal. You can accept changes to the proposal but
make sure everyone is aware of the change. Show the change visually or by re-reading the
changed section. If you make too many changes in the quick reaction round, since you
basically have a new proposal, you might have to start at the beginning of the consent
process (present proposal, clarifying questions etc.) Your task is to avoid confusion.
Confusion will turn into a loss of trust so err on the transparent side even if that entails
Free to share for non-commercial use. See more free content, videos and sociocracy classes on
http://www.sociocracyforall.org/
some redundancy. Better to read the proposal one more time with all the changes than to
deal with a disengaged circle member.
Why are quick reactions helpful?
Hearing quick reactions is a temperature check on the group. How much support does this
proposal have? Is the proposal ready to be consented to? Maybe too many people have
issues with several parts of the proposal in which case you might gather more feedback and
do a rewrite before even going to objections.
On the other hand, a quick reaction round is also a wonderful way of community building.
You get to hear what others think, where they are with the proposal, what it means to them
and what their concerns are, which might not rise to the level of an objection - everything
that there is to say next to objections. Especially on controversial topics, it is important to
ground every decision in the group, and to learn more from and about each other. However,
it is also important to keep statements brief and relevant since it most effective to devote
time to addressing objections.
Free to share for non-commercial use. See more free content, videos and sociocracy classes on
http://www.sociocracyforall.org/
d.
Consent round
You have a proposal that everyone knows and
understands, and you have heard from
everyone about the proposal. It is now time to
hear from everyone on whether they have
objections. Remember, consent is defined by
“no objection”. If there are objections, just
gather a 1-sentence statement about the
nature of the objection. Do not deal with the
objection now.
After everyone has spoken, you can then address objections one by one.
Oftentimes, especially when there are no objections, consent rounds are surprisingly short
because all the work of collaborative proposal-making, clarification and mutual listening has
already been done earlier in the process. In that case, you move on to announcing the
decision. If there are objections, just take note of that, like in this example:
Free to share for non-commercial use. See more free content, videos and sociocracy classes on
http://www.sociocracyforall.org/
e.
Announce decision
After consent is reached, the facilitator announces
the decision. If that has not happened already, the
exact wording will be noted down in the minutes.
Depending on the intensity of the process, it might
be a good idea to take a minute to celebrate the
group process and to take a quick break before
moving to the next topic.
3. How to deal with objections
Dealing with objections is one of the core pieces of sociocracy. If you know how to deal with
objections in a constructive and skillful way, you will turn every concern into something
better for your organization. This can be on the interpersonal level, on the level of the
organization’s culture, or on the content level of your operations. You will also be more
Free to share for non-commercial use. See more free content, videos and sociocracy classes on
http://www.sociocracyforall.org/
curious to hear your coworkers’ objections, which will increase their input, their sense of
ownership and ultimately increase productivity and happiness.
We have seen that objections are what people are not able or willing to work with. That
means that in objecting, they are giving the circle an important message: I cannot work with
this. (Take note of what they are saying yes to: they want to work and be productive.) Given
that we want every circle member to do their work without making it harder for them to
carry out the circle’s aim, it is crucial to hear their concern. In an autocratic mindset,
objections (and objectors) might be sand in the clockwork of the organization. In a
sociocratic organization, objections are appreciated and welcomed because every circle
member has an intrinsic interest in doing their work, and the circle has a vivid interest in
supporting them to do their work. A circle member saying “if we do what this proposal says,
I won’t be able to do my work” -- which is what an objection is -- is very valuable information
which will bring your organization forward instead of slowing circle members down.
If your organization has a culture in which objections are welcome and respected as
valuable information, not as blockage, you will win in many ways:
• The organization deals with objections and makes changes so that the proposal is
safe and there is no interference with the circle’s aim
• The organization’s culture invites other people’s objections, leading to more
members speaking up when there is room for improvement.
• The contributions of members (both in form of work, and in form of feedback) are
welcomed and valued, and members know that.
• Commitment, buy-in and sense of belonging with the whole organization increase.
Dealing with objections can take time. Listening takes time. Given that, it is fair to say that
sociocracy has a pragmatic and valuable way of dealing with objections. It will make it
doable for an organization to take the time to address objections. Even more than that,
sociocracy’s way of addressing objections will increase mutual understanding of people and
will let circle members bond more as they get to know each other more and work together
as peers and with empathy.
You can get all the benefits at once:
• hear valuable information (in the form of an objection)
• figure out a way to overcome the objection by changing the proposal
• help the circle members know and appreciate each other more
• reassure every circle member that they as a person and their ideas and concerns are
welcome.
Free to share for non-commercial use. See more free content, videos and sociocracy classes on
http://www.sociocracyforall.org/
a.
Push for consent early
In general, the idea of dealing with objections in sociocracy is “how can we make it safe
without stopping the process?” We don’t want to prevent progress. If there is substantial
disagreement on a subject, instead of dropping an issue altogether, we want to stay
connected and move the topic along by finding out which parts are controversial and which
ones are not.
As a group, it is very easy to spend a lot of time discussing preferences and alternative
approach and to lose track of what we set out to do. If we push for consent, we will hear
objections early, and we will focus on finding a solution that addresses the objection. We
get to the meat of things right away, without circling on topics that might turn out to be
irrelevant. Push for consent and create an organizational culture in which people are
comfortable in raising their objections. You will get the benefit of productivity with maximal
relevant information on the table.
b.
Options for dealing with objections
So if there is an objection, what do we do? The important thig here is to understand that
just having options puts us into a completely different mental space. If we have options, we
do not have to get into a place of fear or power-asymmetry. We can stay in a place of trust
and choice. Just agreeing on and get training on way of moving forward will be beneficial
for the quality of collaboration and connection in any team.
Free to share for non-commercial use. See more free content, videos and sociocracy classes on
http://www.sociocracyforall.org/
Seek understanding
We always start with curiosity in trying to understand what the concern is. Not every
objection will be clearly stated at first by the objector, and it is the group’s responsibility to
find out what is underlying the concern without making too many assumptions. We want
to get full understanding, and in doing so, we will also find out whether the concern points
to a real objection or a personal preference. As shown earlier in this chapter, objections are
defined by a concern that carrying out the proposal will interfere with the circle’s aim.
When describing their concern, an objector may not be aware whether he or she is having
a personal preference or an objection. Asking questions is a good way to find out more.
How is your work or our organization going to be affected by the proposal? What do you
think might happen?
The following example shows how a group can seek understanding collectively. Remember
that another circle member’s need might be a need you all share even if this need (for
Free to share for non-commercial use. See more free content, videos and sociocracy classes on
http://www.sociocracyforall.org/
instance for being safe) does not reach as high of a priority for everyone. However,
everyone can get behind the need for safety and accept lack of safety as a valid concern.
The circle members are now ready to move on. There are several options to address the
concern. We can revise the content, shorten the term for the proposal and/or measure the
concern. Also, one can refer an issue to a different circle (more focused or more broad) and
get feedback that informs the decision. We will see an examples for all those options.
Free to share for non-commercial use. See more free content, videos and sociocracy classes on
http://www.sociocracyforall.org/
Revise content
This is the most obvious way of dealing with an objection. What can we change or add to
improve the proposal? Here are examples of changes that could be made for a proposal on
membership fees.
The options for revisions of content are countless and very specific to your content. This
article cannot possibly cover all the ways you might be changing your proposals. Since
changing a proposal is a very obvious strategy, we will focus on options that organizations
might not be aware of.
Shorten the term
In sociocracy, every policy comes with a term date. The term date does not mean that the
policy needs to be changed. It is very easy to just consent to a new term date. The advantage
of putting a term date is to remind ourselves of our policy, keep them current, and of the
fact that we can change and adjust things if new information comes up.
If there is an objection to a policy proposal, one option to move forward is to shorten the
term. If a circle member objects to a proposal, would he or she be willing to consent to
trying it out for 3 months? Oftentimes, this makes it easier for circle members to consent.
Free to share for non-commercial use. See more free content, videos and sociocracy classes on
http://www.sociocracyforall.org/
Shortening the term of a proposal naturally comes with the intention to revisit the policy
after the term is up. We will then see whether the policy brought the negative changes that
one or more circle members were predicting which will enable us to make changes -- either
back to the original plan or to another option.
Shortening the term of a policy is what increases the organization’s willingness to
experiment and innovate. It works best in combination with the next strategy, measure the
concern.
Measure the concern
Every concern might potentially be valid. Oftentimes, in non-sociocratic organizations, a
proposal gets dropped if one committee member has concerns. In sociocracy, we widen our
view using another option: measure the concern. What does that mean? It means that we
go ahead and try something (with everyone’s consent) but we put a measurement in place
so that we don’t just hope for the best but actually know what the impact of our policy is.
For instance, picture a non-profit that is debating reducing costs by sending out the nonprofit newsletter only once a month instead of every other week to save money, and
someone objects. What is the concern? That the click rate on the website might go down?
That donations might decrease? How could we find out? We can ask the objector: if we
closely monitor the click rates and donations coming in, how long are you willing to try this
for? We might include in our policy that click-rates and donations are tracked, for 3 months,
and if they fall under a certain threshold, the policy needs to be reviewed immediately. If
there are only minor changes in click-rate and donations, the policy will be looked at after
3 months. We might find out that reducing the costs for producing a newsletter was a good
idea financially because people’s generosity does not go up with the additional newsletter
- or we might find out that it was not a good idea. Whatever happens, after 3 months we
will have more information. Not trying anything would not have given us any new
information. Since we are measuring the concern, we are taking risks but we keep the risks
as small as possible for our given context.
In the same way as we are counting clicks and donations, we can also count complaints,
count clients, evaluate feedback forms, monitor sales. Everything that cannot be counted
can still be surveyed: members, staff members, workshop participants, hosts, customers.
In the example below, it seems like a better idea to evaluate the formation of a new circle
rather soon instead of dropping the idea of a new subcircle altogether. The risk is very low,
and the objector will be able to consent. The group has been enabled to move forward.
Free to share for non-commercial use. See more free content, videos and sociocracy classes on
http://www.sociocracyforall.org/
In example from a worker-coop, scenario 1 below, we can imagine a similar solution. This
group is not shortening the term but they are shortening the time until an evaluation is
made, so they measure their concern early and give time to improvement. (So they are not
measuring their proposal but they are including a measurement so that the proposal is
safer.)
4. Preconditions of consent
Consent decision-making can easily be used in any kind of group, in any non-sociocratic
organization. However, there are preconditions of consent, and we strongly encourage
organizations that plan to only implement parts of sociocracy in their organization to be
aware of these preconditions.
These preconditions were formulated by Gerard Endenburg, the founder of sociocracy . He
defined three requirements for a group to be able to use consent:
•
The group is able and willing to discuss together long enough to resolve objections.
We cannot decide by consent without being willing to work through objections. In
taking short cuts, we will create imbalance in equivalence which will easily lead to
frustration in circle members. It is crucial to train every group in making decisions in
an efficient way. If they know how to deal with objections (as described in this
chapter), the task of “discussing long enough to resolve objections” will be doable
and might actually be an enjoyable and connecting experience and will strengthen
the team.
Free to share for non-commercial use. See more free content, videos and sociocracy classes on
http://www.sociocracyforall.org/
•
The
group
Scenario 1
shares
a
common
Free to share for non-commercial use. See more free content, videos and sociocracy classes on
http://www.sociocracyforall.org/
aim.
Consent decision-making in an organization that does not have a shared and defined
aim will run into issues. We saw that objections are defined by concerns that
carrying out a proposal will interfere with the circle’s aim. If we don’t know what
our aim is, how will we know what an objection is? If the aim is not defined, we have
no ground to stand on, and the disagreement in the aims will be the backdrop for
every dissent on the policy level.
Free to share for non-commercial use. See more free content, videos and sociocracy classes on
http://www.sociocracyforall.org/
•
The group can choose its membership.
If a group has open membership or has no way of removing a member from the
circle, consent will be hard to do. (So will any other way of decision-making!) If you
don’t know who has consent rights, how do you know when you have reached
consent? Defined membership is essential for consent because consent means
consent by everyone in the group, not only the people present in the room.
Just as importantly, a circle has to be able to choose its members. Sociocracy is about
balancing group interests and individual interests. The group has to choose an
individual for being a group member, and the individual has to choose being
member of a group. When an individual expresses interest in joining a circle, that is
a proposal of him/herself joining this circle. To accept this proposal, we do a
(typically quick) consent process to embrace the new member in the circle. (This can
be a sweet ritual and very affirmative for the incoming member of the circle.)
On the other extreme, there is also the option of removing a member from a circle.
This, again, is a proposal that is being made, of removing this circle member from
the circle. Why is this so important that Gerard Endenburg named it as a
precondition of consent? It is crucial because working together only works if all the
circle members are productive in the sense and on the level that the circle requires.
If a circle member is not able to work with the others -- for whatever reason -- a
consent decision is too hard on the group. If a circle member keeps a circle from
being functional, that is a clear example of “we cannot work with this”, hence an
objection to a circle member’s circle membership. Sociocracy, while strengthening
individual power, also protects groups, and for consent decision-making to be
possible, groups have to be protected.
5. Facilitation
a. What to do when you don’t know what to do
There are many moments when a group is unclear about their own process. The best way
to deal with that is to call for a round, especially in a group that is still learning sociocracy.
(In an established, experienced group, a circle member or the facilitator might choose to
make a proposal on process.)
Calling for a process round is a good idea in a variety of situations:
•
The meeting starts and only half (or less) of the circle members are present
“I notice only half of our circle members are present. Let us do a round on how that
is affecting our agenda, and how we could deal with that.”
Free to share for non-commercial use. See more free content, videos and sociocracy classes on
http://www.sociocracyforall.org/
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
A key member (key member for a specific agenda item) is not present.
“I am noticing that NN is not present, and we had planned to talk about this agenda
item where she has been very involved. Let’s do a round on what to do with that
today.”
The process feels muddy. “I am losing track of what we’re doing right now. Can we
do a round on process please?”
The group is going off on a tangent that was not on the agenda but seems important
(or turns out to be time-sensitive). “I am noticing that we’re not discussing our
agenda items right now but that we’re on this tangent that seems important to
people and needs to be dealt with now. Can we do a round to hear if people are ok
about talking more about this now? I just want to make sure we’re intentional about
the process.”
The meeting is running out of time. “I am noticing that we’re unlikely to make it
through our agenda given the time now. Can we do a very quick round to hear where
people’s priorities are, and whether people could stay longer?”
The circle is unprepared (did not read a proposal or a supporting document, for
whatever reason). “I get the sense that not everyone got a chance to read the
document. Let’s do a round on where people are at and what you think can be done
in this meeting.”
Someone has an objection but does not state it properly (uses blame or judgement,
or is just generally unclear). “I am not sure I understand where you are coming from.
I would love to do a round on what people heard, and what you think is behind the
objection.”
You are the facilitator and you don’t know what to do.
“I find myself a little lost here right now and I am not even sure why. I feel a little
anxious here. Can we do a round and people just say where they see us in the process
right now and what you would suggest?”
Most of these situations might also benefit from a process proposal (from facilitator or any
circle member). The facilitator will ask for consent on the process proposal by asking for
objections.
•
•
•
Two circle members get into a heated debate. “Ok, I can see that there are a lot of
feelings here. I’d like to propose that we do a minute of silence, then hear both of
them and then do a round so everyone can be heard on this.”
The meeting is running out of time. “I am noticing that we’re unlikely to make it
through our agenda given the time now. I’d like to propose that we all stay 15min
longer/we table the last two agenda items/...”
You are the facilitator, but as a circle member you feel very emotional about a topic.
“I feel really emotional about this and I find it really hard to be facilitator and so
Free to share for non-commercial use. See more free content, videos and sociocracy classes on
http://www.sociocracyforall.org/
much part of the discussion right now. I would like to ask Nabhi to facilitate this
agenda item. Everyone ok with that?”
In general, if you as the facilitator or a circle member are able to catch a situation early
enough that would have benefitted from a round or a process proposal, you will see that
the inclusion, transparency and integrity you are showing will lead to a much more gentle
and trusting process. Even though calling for an extra round (especially in the example of
running out on time) seems counterintuitive, there is nothing more courageous and healing
than playing the ball into the group’s court. You can tap into group wisdom, and the group
is reminded that both content and process are being held by the entire group. Everyone is
100% responsible of what happens in a circle meeting. If you run into issues on the content
level, bump it one level up and talk about the process. If you run into issues on the process
level, bump it up and process the process in a shared process. You are never victim of the
circumstances, but always agents with choices.
Free to share for non-commercial use. See more free content, videos and sociocracy classes on
http://www.sociocracyforall.org/
Here is an example of what that mind sound like. You will notice that a group can get trained
to be efficient and inclusive at the same time. The sociocratic tools, most of all rounds, have
proven to be extremely effective at supporting that.
b. “Informal consent rounds”
Let us add a few pointers about “informal” consent rounds. Not every consent decision
needs to go through the entire consent process. The goal is to balance time and equivalence
of voices. Deciding to take a 5min break does not justify a 3 minute process of “present
proposal, clarifying questions, quick reactions, consent”. However, we do want to make
group decisions by consent. Therefore, everyone in the room but especially the facilitator,
needs to be aware of the group dynamics. To stay in this above example, there might be
clarifying questions that are pressing enough that people cannot give consent because they
do not have enough information. For instance, “do we all have to leave the room, or is it ok
for the wrote circle members doing some work if I stay here and read my emails?”
Free to share for non-commercial use. See more free content, videos and sociocracy classes on
http://www.sociocracyforall.org/
As for quick reactions, people will probably mumble affirmative phrases (“good idea”). After
making your proposal, you have to expect clarifying questions and/or quick reactions by
taking in the energy in the room. Then give it 5 seconds to look every circle member in the
eyes and see if they consent. They might nod, show their thumbs up, say “consent” or “ok
with me”. But even in a minor decision that allows for informal consent it is important to
get consent from everyone by making an effort to connect with them even if it is in a
nonverbal way. You don’t want to slip back into autocratic ways, even in the smallest details.
Shared power relies on trust, and trust cannot be compromised. The reward for staying in
an egalitarian frame all of the times will be a harmonious and effective group dynamics and
a healthy culture in your organization that you can rely on for harder decisions.
Jennifer Rau, for SoFA
Learn more about sociocracy on our youtube channel (click)
and on our website (click) .
Free to share for non-commercial use. See more free content, videos and sociocracy classes on
http://www.sociocracyforall.org/