What is sociocracy?

The idea in brief

Most organizations decide either from the top down or by majority vote. Both leave people out: the first ignores the people doing the work, and the second can leave a large minority living with something it thinks is unsafe. Sociocracy tries a third way. Work is divided among small circles, each circle decides its own matters by consent, and the circles are linked so information flows both ways.

The approach grew out of the Netherlands. The educator Kees Boeke used consent-based meetings at his school in the mid-twentieth century, and the engineer Gerard Endenburg developed them into a method for running his company in the 1970s. Today it is used by cooperatives, schools, nonprofits and businesses of every size.

Circles and domains

A circle is a group with an aim and a domain: the area it has authority over. Inside its domain a circle decides for itself, without asking permission. Outside it, it makes proposals to whoever holds that domain. Writing domains down is what keeps a small group from either doing everything or waiting on everyone.

At Common Grounds, the Founding Circle holds the domain of the whole cooperative, and a project circle such as ROAST holds the practical work of its project.

Consent, not consensus

Consensus asks whether everyone agrees. Consent asks whether anyone has a reasoned objection: a specific concern that the proposal is unsafe, unworkable, or works against the group's aim. If nobody does, the proposal goes ahead, even if it is not anyone's favorite.

The usual way to put it is "good enough for now, safe enough to try". Because every decision carries a date when it will be reviewed, nobody has to hold out for a perfect answer, and an objection becomes a contribution to the proposal rather than a veto.

Roles, links and reviews

Circles fill roles, such as a facilitator to run meetings and a secretary to keep the record, and choose the people for them by consent too. Circles are linked: in classic sociocracy, two people sit in both a circle and the circle above it, one carrying direction down and one carrying feedback up. Decisions and roles have terms, and they come back for review on a set date.

How Common Grounds simplifies it

The Members run coffee shops, so the cooperative takes what helps and leaves what would turn into homework. Its governance draft says the goal is not to teach a complex system but to make shared work clear, fair and easy to sustain. In practice:

• Decisions use the lightest tool that fits. Routine matters are settled in conversation, and consent is kept for real proposals.
• One delegate per project circle carries news to the Founding Circle, rather than the classic pair of links.
• Meetings are short, and written updates fill the time between them.
• When consent is taking too long on a decision that is not a big one, the draft allows a fallback: each person approves, stands aside or objects, and objections are written down. Classic sociocracy does not fall back to a vote, and the Members chose to keep the option while they learn.
• A glossary and plain definitions replace a training course.

The full set of tools, with when each one is used, is on how we make decisions.