|
|
Sociocracy governance model Hello Everyone, I am wondering if any of you have heard of or have used a governance model called Sociocracy? Apparently it is being used throughout Europe in business, government and nonprofits. There is a website www.sociocracy.biz that explains the approach, as well as a book called We The People by John Buck and Sharon Villines that discusses the philosophy and methods with real-world examples. If any of you know of this model and can share how it works (and how well it works) that would be helpful. Thank you! Best regards, Kathy Hedge, BoardSource  Hi Kathy,  Hi Kathy! I'm not familiar with this school of managment but I can see that the model is one that could have many applications for NGOs. Most organizations, when they're trying to get away from autocratic decision-making by one or two individuals on the board, adopt a consensus approach. And yet, as John Carver says,“requiring consensus before taking action is often a prescription for mediocrity or dishonesty.” He adds that any board is suspect if it records recurring unanimous votes, since perfect agreement all the time implies the board is not really engaged in its work or is not tackling the difficult issues. You may or may not agree with Carver, but it's not hard to see how a commitment to consensus can really slow down the work of the board. An decision-making approach that emphasizes consent rather than consensus could avoid these limitations while ensuring everyone's voice is heard. I'd be interested in knowing more about how decision-making according to the sociocratic method takes place.
Submitted by Consuelo Castro on July 29, 2008 - 13:34.
Dear Kathy, Thank you for this information. According to this theory, in a decision making process at least two persons, at least one representative from the circle, are members of the next higher circle. This would mean that the CEO is suggested to be included in the board decisions. In my organization, the executive president (correspondent to a CEO position) does have a vote in boards decisions. I wonder what other experiences there are in this issue? |
SearchMember loginAsk the Community
My groups |
Hmmm...I agree with marilyn completely. I actually think that decision making in the Board should be split based on the issues calling for a decision and the pace/urgency with which they need to be made. While its great to have consensus, its just not realistic or practical in most cases. People will differ. However, in an engaged Board, its critical that on some fundamental issues such as those relating to the vision, mission,impact etc of the organisation, decisions aren't made in a hurry but there is complete agreement on the way forward-this is the only way that 'ownership' to the decision can be easily got.
However, in certain other areas where Board ratification or approval is required such as immediate strategic plans, financial matters that support opertaions etc, I would think that a majority vote with consent from dissenting members is a more practical way forward.
Aarti