As a worker-owned cooperative, it should come as no surprise that CoLab has a history of experimenting with Sociocracy. We used aspects of Sociocracy (rounds) before we even knew what Sociocracy was. Once we learned about it, we have attempted to use the parts that make sense in our context. We cannot claim to have implemented it fully or correctly, but many of us feel Sociocracy has been instrumental in maintaining our cultural and organizational cohesion.
Sociocracy’s main feature, in my humble opinion, is principle 1: “Consent governs policy decision making.” From this core pillar you can go in many different directions, so long as everyone in the group agrees to it. In fact, the rest of the principles (circles, double-linking, elections) can be either consented to or not. If you can come up with a better organization method than circles, sub-circles, double-linking, lead, secretary, etc., then you are free to attempt it, so long as everyone agrees to it.
I have used Sociocracy in several different contexts (both within and outside of CoLab) to positive effect. In these efforts, I have come to understand that Sociocracy alone is not sufficient. There is one critical ingredient that determines whether or not Sociocracy will work: healthy communication.
This revelation, in hindsight, is somewhat obvious. Of course if there are problems with communication, there will be problems with self-governance (Sociocracy or otherwise), because communication is foundational. Without healthy communication, a self-organized group cannot really do anything effectively. And how could it be otherwise? Can anything get done when the members of a group cannot communicate effectively? Clearly not.
Note that obviously we are not talking about hierarchical groups here. If a group has a hierarchical power structure, then those at the top can just tell those at the bottom what to do and those at the bottom will have no input in the way things work. This is your typical corporate reality, unfortunately. But for those of us lucky enough to participate in non-hierarchical organizations, all voices are heard and all feedback is welcome.
But with that participation comes complexity, and that is where systems like Sociocracy come in.
I should also note that this requirement for healthy communication is absolutely not lost on the Sociocracy world. In their book Many Voices One Song: Shared Power with Sociocracy, the authors Ted Rau and Jerry Koch-Gonzalez specifically touch on NVC (non violent communication) techniques in the section on Feedback.
NVC was developed by clinical psychologist Marshall Rosenberg in the 60s and 70s; it is a method of improving communication quality between parties by attempting to mitigate common miscommunication patterns.
However, NVC (and healthy communication in general) is not a panacea. NVC takes training and only reaps rewards if all involved are dedicated to the practice. And more importantly, it only works if everyone is on board with the group’s “aim”. In Sociocratic terms, “aim” simply means the direction the group wants to go. It is the reason the group exists. And of course, to know whether everyone is on the same page regarding the group’s aim, you need healthy communication. In this sense, these two requirements go hand-in-hand.
And so to sum up: if everyone in a group agrees on the group’s aim, and everyone in the group is dedicated to healthy communication, then Sociocracy will work. If a group does not agree on the aim, and is not dedicated to healthy communication, Sociocracy will not work.